Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CP80's Cheryl Preston Suggests "CyberSecurity" Group At ICANN

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the one-frustrated-astronaut dept.

Censorship 139

Beezlebub33 writes "A new petition has been filed under the GSNO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) of ICANN to create a new constituency the CyberSafety Constituency. Existing constituencies include 'Commercial and Business,' 'gTLD,' 'Registrars,' 'Non-commercial,' etc. The new proposed one on CyberSafety is in the 'interest of balancing free speech and anonymity with the values of protection and safety in developing Internet policy within ICANN.' If that doesn't raise red flags all by itself, consider that the person submitting it is Cheryl B. Preston. She's listed in the petition with the organization Brigham Young University, but she's part of CP80. She's suggested limiting content on port 80 to the 'right' things, and other stuff can go on other ports, so it can be appropriately filtered by the authorities. Guess who gets to decide what goes on which ports?"

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do it like this (4, Insightful)

tiger32kw (1236584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263007)

Maybe they should split the ports and create Mormon internet and non-Mormon internet... we call port 80!

Re:Do it like this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263349)

I have a question:

If Cheryl B. Preston is a cunt, does that mean she's not allowed on port 80?

Re:Do it like this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263949)

Sonny, I don't like your tone. I think it's time the authorities had a look at your computer.

I'm a self-appointed guardian of society and I think you are a danger to the rest of us.

You are un-American, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, and just might be an enemy combatant.

Proper authorities have been notified.

Re:Do it like this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264021)

As a mormon, you do realize that your husband mixes his other wives' juices into your vagina when you have sex, right? Because Mormons don't believe in using condoms, either.

Re:Do it like this (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264447)

You're right. I am un-American. As long as that means somebody who doesn't live in the USA.....

Re:Do it like this (2, Interesting)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263443)

Maybe they should split the ports

Your comment is more realistic than you might have originally intended - many already consider the existing internet worthy of a complete redesign, and in comparison to the various ideas for a new node addressing system and more secure flow control protocols, using the existing internet (IPv6) with instead a more P2P-like content distribution system would solve all sorts of problems, namely net neutrality and load/bandwidth issues.

While I think completely redesigning the internet would be overkill as we already depend on it's legacy design so much (refer to Intel's plan for IA-64 to "eventually" replace x86), at least a move to a more distributed system not completely unlike the newsgroup protocols would be a good move. Keep using the existing IP infrastructure, only use IPv6 so we don't run out of addresses (for a while, at least), but change the upper-level protocols that are starting to introduce more issues.

And if a complete move from HTTP is too much to ask for, how about a secure P2P front-end to distribute the content so the addresses listed in the logs aren't necessarily the real visitors, yet geographically close by for the applications that depend on that data. This, as it would seem, allow us to continue using HTTP only in a more secure and neutral manner, similar to what Tor is doing but encrypted end-to-end and with more shared bandwidth so the loading times aren't ridiculous.

Just place that in the big suggestion box, I guess. Just a thought.

Re:Do it like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263789)

tl;dr

Re:Do it like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264225)

TOOO LONG DIDN'T READ LOLOLOL

Re:Do it like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264191)

Nobody in their right mind thinks the internet needs a government-sponsored redesign. What are you, some kind of shill?

Preserve freedom on the internet. Nothing else matters.

Re:Do it like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264401)

Nowhere in his comment did it say the gov't would be funding. In fact, his whole idea of a P2P internet sounds very anti-big brother to me, and I think thepiratebay folks said something about this once

Re:Do it like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264579)

If I only had mod points right now...

Mormon Bashing (4, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263887)

I recognize that, between Texas polygamy, Mitt Romney, and the Prop 8 hullabaloo, it's socially acceptable to harsh on Mormons, but if this were strictly a Mormon problem, it wouldn't be going anywhere. There are fewer than five million Mormons in the United States, with a significant percentage of those living in the west (mostly Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho, with a reasonably large population in Wyoming, Colorado, and along the Pacific coast).

I am a student at BYU law school. I was involved in the editing process for a symposium we held on CP80 and other "decency" issues as relating to the internet. We had non-Mormon guests from all over the country, and many were in close agreement with Professor Preston.

They were also all, almost without exception, so technically illiterate that it was painful to read their stuff. Some of the claims they made were so outrageously wrong on a technological level that I spent less time formatting their footnotes than writing comments about how technologically infeasible some of their proposals were--and I'm not even an expert, just a lot more of an expert than these folks. Most of my comments were ignored.

The problem is not Mormons. Furthermore, the problem is only barely attributable to social conservatives, as a great many liberal democrats love this nanny-state stuff.

The problem is people, mostly lawyers, who are accustomed to solving their problems by making up laws. The term for this attitude is "statism" and it is rampant in America. Got a problem? Make a law! Instead of recognizing that the world is imperfect (and the legal system even more so), make a law any time something bothers you!

I am a Mormon, and it will not surprise you to know that Mormons are just as susceptible to statism as everyone else. Professor Preston obviously falls into that category. But I'm Mormon, and I don't, and while I'm hardly representative of my religion, it turns out that I'm not particularly representative of American attitudes toward statism generally.

So dial back the anti-religious bigotry a tad and maybe we can make some progress against the real problem.

Re:Mormon Bashing (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263929)

Furthermore, the problem is only barely attributable to social conservatives, as a great many liberal democrats love this nanny-state stuff.

Truer words were never spoken.

Re:Mormon Bashing (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264359)

but then again, you're liberal by name only if you think this is a good idea.

Re:Mormon Bashing (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264525)

That is because to call the Dems "liberal" and the repubs "conservative" is frankly an insult to both words. The "Barry Goldwater style small business leave everybody alone" actual conservatives got ran out of the conservative party by the bible thumpers in the 80s, and likewise the true "let's try something new since the old crap ain't working" liberals got ran out of the dems by the Nancy Pelosi money whores. Now BOTH parties are pro big government, pro blowing lots of cash, pro federal rights over everything.

Frankly the only difference anymore is in the asses they kiss. The repubs kiss the corporate and defense industry booties, while the Dems kiss the Hollywood media and union booties. That is why I hope that the libertarians or greens or somebody steps up to the place but soon, because frankly right now it doesn't matter which you vote for, because both are determined to screw you and the country.

Re:Mormon Bashing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264417)

The term for this attitude is "statism" and it is rampant in America. Got a problem? Make a law! Instead of recognizing that the world is imperfect (and the legal system even more so), make a law any time something bothers you!

That is so true. I remember watching a news report about someone whose son was killed when he drove his truck into a tree because he was talking on his cellphone.

The father's response? To campaign for stricter laws against cellphone use while driving.

Ignoring, of course, that there ALREADY are laws against using the cellphone while driving. Which the father claimed his son knew about. And he claimed that he repeatedly told his son not to drive while talking on the cellphone. His son was too stupid or too arrogant to pay attention to the lesson of not using the cellphone while driving.

Sadly, the full story is even stupider. He was talking on his cellphone, dropped it, and then leaned down to pick it up. Needless to say, when ducking under the dash, it's hard to see the road.

Re:Do it like this (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264109)

Maybe they should split the ports...

Why? Any group is free to go and implement their own private WAN or a VPN. See: China

I already added my response (5, Insightful)

rwwyatt (963545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263019)

I already added my comments in an email response.

  • It is beyond the scope of ICANN's current mission to address any content
  • It will definitely fail to be all inclusives. Porn Sites do not want to risk selling to minors explicitly.
  • Online Safety is the responsibility of the user. In regards to Children, It is the responsibility of the parent

Re:I already added my response (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264349)

Not to mention, ICANN can't even address numerous problems within the DNS/WHOIS infrastructure -- why would I trust them with the authority to decide what content should be filtered?

Censorship. (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263053)

Censorship, no matter for what "righteous" purpose you might intend it, always, always, always, leads to tyranny.

Re:Censorship. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263241)

Unfortunately, that is often considered to be one of its features, rather than its bugs...

Interesting (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263069)

Meanwhile, Internet pornography metastasizes at an ever more alarming rate. Pornographers find ingenious ways to circumvent filters, attract new categories of viewers, and build economic and political support.

I wonder why she threw that last bit in there.
It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

... I propose using Internet port designations to separate online content. ... the right of parents to determine the means and materials by which their children are educated.

The right of parents begins at the computer and ends at the modem.
Clinton tried separating TV content with the V-Chip and it went absolutely no where.
The fact that it is inconvienent for ignorant people to regulate their hardware is not a social problem.

Fucking with the structure of the internet is not the right solution.

Re:Interesting (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263095)

It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

Fucking mormons, that's why. Screw through a hole in a sheet, have to wear "special underwear" - why not just chuck them all into a blender with the scientologists and jehovah's witnesses and see if they blend?

Re:Interesting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264011)

You were modded troll, but I think you are correct. I was unaware of the special underwear until someone told me about it. I looked it up and was amazed. They also tell their wives they can't get to heaven without the husband's special password.

It's a total crock and is only slightly less insane than the scientologist whack-jobs.

I am so sick and tired of these religious idiots - of any flavor - trying to legislate my life according to their hangups and fears.

Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

Re:Interesting (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264381)

You were modded troll, but I think you are correct. I was unaware of the special underwear until someone told me about it. I looked it up and was amazed. They also tell their wives they can't get to heaven without the husband's special password. It's a total crock and is only slightly less insane than the scientologist whack-jobs. I am so sick and tired of these religious idiots - of any flavor - trying to legislate my life according to their hangups and fears. Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

It was free to leave, so it did. How ironic. I'm sick of liberal idiots telling me how to live my life and fund someone else's according to their hangups and fears.

Re:Interesting (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265359)

You were modded troll, but I think you are correct. I was unaware of the special underwear until someone told me about it. I looked it up and was amazed. They also tell their wives they can't get to heaven without the husband's special password.

It's a total crock and is only slightly less insane than the scientologist whack-jobs.

I am so sick and tired of these religious idiots - of any flavor - trying to legislate my life according to their hangups and fears.

Fortunately I have karma to burn, so they can mod me troll all they want - it doesn't stop it from being the truth, and they'll get theirs from the meta-mods. There's really no place for this sort of foolishness in the 21st century.

Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

It went north for the duration to convalesce ... hopefully it'll make a full recovery.

Re:Interesting (3, Insightful)

ncohafmuta (577957) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263351)

I wonder why she threw that last bit in there.
It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

what else is new? The ATF has been doing that with the tobacco/smoking industry for years.

Re:Interesting (1, Flamebait)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264391)

I wonder why she threw that last bit in there. It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

what else is new? The ATF (formerly known as revenuers) has been doing that with the tobacco/smoking industry for years.

Special Note: The ATF is harsher on moonshine and firearms (especially firearms). They're even willing to kill unarmed women and children over them.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264627)

Hmm, if they are unarmed, then why again is the ATF willing to kill over firearms?

Re:Interesting (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263363)

Parental controls are not a good analogy because they are implemented as metadata transmitted in a channel that is typically used to transmit ancillary data.

This would be more akin to not allowing mature content on VHF channels. The biggest difference here is that you are pushing the decision from the content/content metadata into the transmission layer that shouldn't have any knowledge about what content is being transmitted.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263693)

It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

That explains their other office [cp80.org] in Arlington, VA. Invest in America - buy a congressman!

Re:Interesting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264051)

If you ever lived in Utah, you'd know they not only want to eliminate "evil" pornography, but also enact all sorts of laws to force everyone to follow LDS guidlines and join their church.

In the nineties, during a speech to BYU, one of their leaders declared everyone over 25 and not married a "menace to society." Later that year, BYU "off-campus housing" revised their contract so that only students were allowed to live in "off campus housing." Since most single people in Provo go to BYU, this meant nearly all housing just became unavailable to anyone who was single but not going to BYU or UVSC. A few years later, the Provo city council passed "parking laws" which they only enforced against single people. Anyone who had a roommate south of BYU, but not in BYU housing suddenly found they were in "violation" of the law.

Oh, and they would only rent individual housing to married people. You were basicly run out of the area (no housing) if you didn't conform to the marry by age 25 declaration.

Re:Interesting (1)

Acius (828840) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265163)

I attended BYU, lived in that same off-campus housing, and have lived in the Provo area for over 20 years. You are exaggerating badly.

- There are no laws to "force everyone to follow LDS guidlines [sic] and join their church." Even if such a law were possible in America (I hope not!), such a law would be highly repugnant to Mormons, as there is an express prohibition against laws like that in the church's core creed (cf. eleventh article of faith).

As for laws forcing everyone to follow LDS guidelines: Cigarettes and alcohol are legal in Utah. There are no mandatory Internet filters in Utah, although they are a popular add-on for local ISPs. We have shops that legally sell sex toys and pornographic movies, and billboards on the freeways advertising their existence. What laws are you referring to? Most Mormons do strongly disapprove of these things, but that isn't the same thing as illegal.

- The "menace to society" quote is a very sarcastic sort of joke. I've heard it said a great many times, mostly by single people who wish they weren't. The original quote gets attributed to Brigham Young, although I can't find any documentation that he ever said it. It is certainly much older than "the nineties," and the age (18? 22? 25? 30?) has been revised a few times.

There is a big problem with self-loathing singles here, but that doesn't equate to social ostracism.

3. I haven't followed the vagaries of BYU housing contracts, so maybe you got this right, I don't know. But there are a very great many apartments available to non-students in Provo. As a non-student who has rented in Provo, I found being overwhelmed by which to pick to be a greater problem. I imagine that if you insist on finding non-student housing across the road from BYU that you may have some difficulties.

4. I also hate the parking laws -- I've had to fool around with the idiotic visitor permits any time I was visiting someone in that part of town. On the other hand, it sounds like you did not have enough parking spaces on the property for the number of people living there (which is a violation of the old ordinance). There were regularly so many cars parked on the streets that it became impossible for visitors to find parking in that area. The reason everyone got inflicted with the stupid street parking laws is that the law about having enough parking spaces proved unenforceable. So I blame your landlord for the bad laws.

Claiming that these laws are only enforced against single people is silly. Cars are not marked with the marital status of their owner, unless "being a minivan" counts. The laws are enforced against the people who clog up the streets, marital status notwithstanding.

5. I have rented individual housing. I was not a student at the time. I am single. My money was sufficiently green. Who is this "they" of whom you speak?

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264419)

> Clinton tried separating TV content with the V-Chip and it went absolutely no where

Is that why our TVs have ratings on programs like "TV-MA" and lockout chips that parents can use to block access to them?

regulating tcp is retarded (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263099)

From the perspective of an ISV that does anything besides simple web browsing having to worry about regulated port numbers seems like an unnecessary headache. What about ports 25 and 53, would those get regulated also? the effort is useless without them and exposes lots of downstream parties to liability if they do. Even if you agree with their stated goal, their approach is totally unworkable IMO.

Honestly, I'm not threatened. (4, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263121)

It sounds scary, but I cannot for a moment believe that this could happen. I hate to drag in the old saw, but "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."

I also can't imagine that the rest of the world would appreciate that sort of thing. There'd be international pressure against it. And as I recall, the .xxx TLD issue was pretty close--ICANN really has no motivation to do anything like this, and it would be a move totally at odds with their history (and the principles of the internet in general).

So we're giving time to some nutjob who hasn't got a prayer, and providing something for slashdotters to rant about...par for the course I guess.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263301)

So we're giving time to some nutjob who hasn't got a prayer, and providing something for slashdotters to rant about...par for the course I guess.

If you do not aggressively confront and thwart social conservatives, they will keep beating their drums until a sympathetic ear catches the beat and starts dancing to their tune.

Remember Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl? It took over 4 years (2/2004-6/2008) for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to void the FCC's $500,000 fine. But in the meantime, other fines were handed out and networks self-censored. In other words, damage was done.

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263673)

"Social conservatives" in the US are essentially Christian Taliban. They don't have the power to act with the savagery of Taliban (abortion clinic bombers excepted) but never forget that people who believe in primitive superstitions only function in the modern world by compromising their beliefs.

When they have power, they revert to type.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264037)

Witness the last eight years as proof of that.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (0, Troll)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264449)

"Social conservatives" in the US are essentially Christian Taliban. They don't have the power to act with the savagery of Taliban (abortion clinic bombers excepted) but never forget that people who believe in primitive superstitions only function in the modern world by compromising their beliefs.

Hate to break it to you, Eric Rudolph was captured 5 years ago, and he'll be in jail for the rest of his life.

Don't get too cocky. Christians have been under attack for years in this country to the point where many are even scared to talk about it anymore, as if it were embarrassing. So much for being Taliban-like.

And yes, I am a Christian.

When they have power, they revert to type.

Funny. I thought the same thing about liberals. Largely godless, living according to what they can get from others, and forcing their opinions upon everyone. When they have power, they revert to type.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (3, Interesting)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263743)

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

I think if you check current usage, you'll find ostracism and shame are the liberal weapons of choice (environment, sexual preference, and oh! the children). These are techniques they learned from the christians when the christians were liberal.

All this nonsense is christian, not conservative. The christians switched to vote conservative because, faced with a choice between the liberals' anti-christian vitriol and the conservatives' good-humored tolerance, they chose conservative. Can't hardly blame them.

The christians no more define conservatism than the muslims define liberalism; it is in both cases a marriage of convenience. It's odd that no one ever refers to muslims as the religious left, though that is what they are.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263989)

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

Re-reading this, it seems somewhat harsh.
But it isn't. And let me tell you why.
Two out of the three prongs the Supreme Court uses to determine obscenity [usdoj.gov] begins with the phrase: "Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards,"

FTFA by Cheryl B. Preston: "I propose a statute that prohibits knowingly publishing content that is child pornography, obscene, or harmful to minors on Community Ports"

child pornography - illegal and well defined by case law
obscene* - illegal and well defined by case law
harmful to minors - WTF!?

The last time "harmful to minors" and "the internet" were in the same sentence was 1998 when COPA [wikipedia.org] was passed into law. Guess what happened to COPA... You get +1 poince if you guessed "ruled as unconstitutional multiple times by multiple courts"

Speaking of COPA...

FTFA: "...expensive and imperfect computer-installed filters, which users can hack past, circumvent, or disable, and which must be regularly updated and monitored."

SCOTUS: "filtering's superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, which Congress created to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors' ability to gain access to harmful materials on the internet."

Once again, Ideology meets Reality... and loses.

*AFAIK, during the Bush Administration, at most 5~10 people/companies were charged with obscenity w/re to distributing (non-child) pornography through the mail &/or internet. A few were convicted and a few cases are still pending. And most of those convictions were won because the federal prosecutors went forum shopping in socially conservative jurisdictions in order to take advantage of 'community standards'.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (0, Offtopic)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264425)

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

Don't look now, but fiscal liberals keep spending my money. And my future childrens' money, and their childrens' money. And they keep trying to force me to spend, Spend, SPEND my way out of economic crisis! And what I don't spend freely, they'll find a way to take.

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't part of their population control policy, where they provide me with an incentive not to reproduce, simply for the purpose of fucking the gov't.

Now, I'll admit I'm a social conservative. I'm also ardently Libertarian. The government has no place regulating every little thing. Don't assume that the squeaky wheel represents the views of anything close to a simple majority. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

As an aside, has anyone seen any as-seen-on-TV type devices designed to keep liberal hands out of my pockets? If so, please let me know.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened. (2, Interesting)

pthreadunixman (1370403) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263309)

You should be threatened. Along with the ICANN port == channel stupidity goes tons of legislation that makes the ISPs liable for anything that gets past them. This includes having U.S. ISPs keep a blacklist of "non-compliant" countries. If you're on the blacklist, then all content is considered bad and has to be filtered.

Obviously the pr0n port (1)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263159)

should be 7878

Re:Obviously the pr0n port (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263207)

should be 7878

Why not 6969? It's the "KFC++ port" - "More than just finger-licking good!"

Re:Obviously the pr0n port (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265373)

Nah, Due to the recession the new 69 is 78. Eating just became more expensive.

Alternative proposal (4, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263203)

How about a counter proposal. Leave port 80 just like it is. The people who want a 'cleaned kid friendly Internet' can establish an alternate port where such a thing would be delivered. Do it like this:

Rule one: all servers running on this new port have to be doing https.

Rule two: all certs will use an entirely new chain of trust established by the consortium doing this new safe net. They condition the server keys on a site obeying whatever content rules they put out, revoking the keys of sites who go rogue.

Rule three: A mandatory set of tags describing the content on each page so parents can adjust their browser accordingly to their views. Such a system already exists in IE and could exist in others once someone actually began using the stuff. After all a browser update will probably be required to get the new root certs installed anyway.

Then it is just a matter of blocking port 80 on kids computers. Best done at the AP/router.

Re:Alternative proposal (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263269)

And that is what the proposal would look like if it weren't actually a bad faith, weasel-worded attempt to control what everybody does on the internet...

Re:Alternative proposal (2, Insightful)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263299)

except that blocking port 80 in that scenario is superfluous. If "good" sites require ssl and a CA that requires a purity test it is trivial to block "evil" content at the browser. Someone just needs to build a browser that obeys those rules and user permissions need to be set up to prevents the children from modifying the software and/or installing other CA certificates, which would need to be done in any case.
One has to wonder though if google would pass their test and if not how useful their safe internet would be.

Re:Alternative proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263397)

Are you kidding. Google is the #1 source for porn.

Re:Alternative proposal (3, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263431)

> except that blocking port 80 in that scenario is superfluous.

To prevent them simply launching an unrestricted Firefox from a USB key. Or undermining the Windows help system which is these days largly a web browser, etc.

> One has to wonder though if google would pass their test and if not how useful their safe internet would be.

http://www.google.com/ [google.com] certainly wouldn't pass. If Google didn't offer up a clean search on the alternate port somebody else would certainly fill the hole in the marketplace.

And a few addendums to my original post.

A new protocol name would be required to avoid pahing to keep specifying the port number in URLs. Perhaps shttp: for SafeHTTP? And the browser would have to explicitly know to switch cert chains based on the https or shttp protocol. This whole scheme could be done in a single RFC and a few man hours of hacking on Firefox to produce a proof of concept browser. The rest would be political and marketing to get enough sites to sign on.

And that last part is the sticking point. Others have tried, remember my mention of IE supporting a system to put ratings in the headers? Nobody does. So who would buy a new ssl cert and open up an alternate port unless a whole heck of a lot of political pressure came crashing down.

I'm a libertarian and unless the government mandated this scheme I would actually like to see it done. Got grand kids about to be old enough to use the Internet. And on the current Internet the undesirable stuff comes looking for you whether you are looking for it or not.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263597)

check out kidzui [kidzui.com] which doesn't use ssl, but does use a whitelist domain model that mostly works.

HTTPS works just fine... and account permissions can be set up to prevent install from or booting to removable media... no need for a new port. If that really wasn't enough you could set up an external proxy (maybe on the AP) that would do the filtering.

With a purely HTTPS based approach the only thing that needs to be done is disable HTTP and bundle it only with the safe CA cert.

> remember my mention of IE supporting a system to put ratings in the headers? Nobody does.
This is perhaps the crucial point. Do enough people care for the market to solve it? If not than passing legislation to force us to have protection they we don't want (and has costs) is just plain wrong. There are plenty of groups (e.g. LDS) that want a safe internet... those who care can subsidies it. With large enough subsidies they will be able to get the content providers on board, whether the users will be interested or not is an open question.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

Ocker3 (1232550) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263699)

A number of Australian ISPs have from time to time offered 'clean' feeds that are in some way filtered, but they've alwasy died on the vine from a complete lack of demand from users. If the family PC is in the living room, any peeks at illicit material the kids can sneak while the parents are out of the room won't be that damaging (IMO). Sure, hours of hardcore porn will probably affect your tastes and perhaps behaviours, especially with long-term exposure, but a few minutes? How much more effect could the millions of dollars inherently involved in such a huge undertaking have in so many other more worthwhile areas?? Looking after kids from broken homes so they don't grow up to repeat the same patterns, making sure every schoolchild has a good breakfast, etc etc etc.

Re:Alternative proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264115)

And may I be a personal testament to that.

After hours and hours of hard core porn, I now have fantasies of Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Jeff Guckert, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mitt Romney, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Ari Fleisher.

I think they are all super duper hot!

Pray for me....

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264489)

And may I be a personal testament to that. After hours and hours of hard core porn, I now have fantasies of Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Jeff Guckert, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mitt Romney, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Ari Fleisher. I think they are all super duper hot! Pray for me....

My...since we're being honest, after hours upon hours of hardcore porn, I now have fantasies of Barbie and Jenna (Hager) Bush. Life is good.

multiple whitelists (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264265)

I don't like the idea of systemizing this sort of thing.

The best solution is multiple (competing) whitelists. That way, we don't have a doll manufacturing bribing "the ratings organization" to let their edgy ads into the stream.

The kids will still be exposed to edgy stuff, but when bribes flow things go sour quickly.

It's the monoculture thing.

Re:Alternative proposal (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263307)

...Or how about ICANN and parents growing up and realizing a few things. A) Parents can control what sites their kids visit. B) Information is not "damaging", if a kid want to look up porn and they search for it, they obviously want to look at it and are much less the "innocent kids" then their parents think they are. C) It is not ICANN, the ISPs, or even the government to "patrol" what is online. The internet is honestly one of the few places where true capitalism and freedom is at work (despite efforts to prevent it), and just look at the growth in the last few years, a "closed garden" web like they are suggesting would not have hardly any of the growth the free web is experiencing now.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264501)

Hear hear! The voice of reason. Hannity, is that you?

Re:Alternative proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27265607)

You got my vote.

Re:Alternative proposal (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263409)

I have an alternate idea: How about subscribing to a "child-safe" ISP which sanitizes your content for you? Sure, you will have to pay extra for the service, but it is YOU who want the censorship, not I. I'll take the bad with the good if it means that my liberty to choose to produce crud or good content remains intact.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

bigbird (40392) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264071)

Moving over here to Australia will soon be almost the same thing!

Re:Alternative proposal (2, Interesting)

loftyhauser (1149267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264385)

That's actually an idea that has been tried. Slashdot covered a similar effort here [slashdot.org] . Check out the comments there. Not a lot of support, huh? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Slashdot seems to have a way of mixing "Utah", "Mormon", "Porn", and "Censorhip" to make things much more sensational than they really are.

Re:Alternative proposal (0, Troll)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263511)

Not to be redundant, but that's basically the same thing I said above [slashdot.org] only I suggest a P2P distribution system so as not to break compatibility with the already widely used legacy WAN infrastructure. We are running out of IPv4 address pretty fast, so whatever the solution - use IPv6/IPv8 (coming soon I'm sure). Encryption in addition to an enablement of a P2P internet distribution system that really uses olde HTTP/HTTPS as a backend would solve many of the net issues we now have.

As stated, while not perfect the layer = 4 protocols are pretty much set in stone for too many applications than to be replaced, so just using a new, encrypted and widely distributed and supported front-end (like Tor/Privoxxy, but more transparent and supported) would be a decent solution if not the answer we've needed. It's anonymous, neutral, encrypted, random (TCP-wise), widely distributed, backwards-compatible, and eliminates current concerns with the current internet.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

jimmyhat3939 (931746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263855)

You're exactly right. All someone has to do is set up a Certificate Authority and they can basically construct their own private internet from the ground up. Heck, they could even construct their own version of Wikipedia that touts creationism and eliminates or disputes evolution.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263965)

> All someone has to do is set up a Certificate Authority and they can basically
> construct their own private internet from the ground up.

Not exactly. You are still asking each website to adopt the system, not recreating every popular site. So no you couldn't have an alternate Wikipedia unless you forked their content onto your own servers. The difference is that the version offered by the new port would be required to be properly tagged for content. They could even have porn, just as long as every bit was tagged in the http response before the content so teh browser could refuse to accept content it has been programmed to accept.

The big difference in my idea over PICS is the requirement for certs and keys implying revocation for intentionally setting the tags to let filth get to people who shouldd't get it.

And psst. One noteworthy side effect. Since the whole scheme falls apart without reliable end to end crypto on every single pageview it eliminates most of the usefulness of a government mandated filter at the ISP level. Remember, the vilest rotgut porn COULD be served over this protocol, so long as it is tagged correctly. Acceptable content is purely a contract between the server and client.

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264745)

Heck, they could even construct their own version of Wikipedia that touts creationism and eliminates or disputes evolution.

They already did:

http://www.conservapedia.com/ [conservapedia.com]

Re:Alternative proposal (1)

xbytor (215790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263863)

The old AOL needs to come back to life. It would be perfect for people that want an interweb that is safe for business and/or safe for kids.

Re:Alternative proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264111)

I have a better one:

  1. Cut all the fiber optic lines to/from Utah
  2. Make it illegal to make a network connection to anyone inside utah
  3. Have the military shoot down anyone to tries to enter or leave Utah.
  4. Profit!

installed ie8 and everythings different here (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263213)

Text blocks are god awful and tiny

some pages are void of content (two so far)

suxors

Where do they find these people? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263345)

I've just gone through the CP80 explanations of how the internet works and how filtering does not work but should. "The CP80 Internet Channel Initiative is a solution that can effectively solve the Internet pornography problem." That's fantastic. Let's hear more about that. Oh, all content has to be categorized into adult content and "community" content, which can then only be served on port ranges assigned to the types of content. That'll work. And then we block IP ranges of countries which do not require their internet users to categorize content and abide by the port assignment rules. That'll work.

How afraid can you be of your kids seeing naked people and still leave them unsupervised on the big bad internet, hoping that finally someone has found a working filtering solution when even a totalitarian country like China can't effectively censor the internet? At least the CP80 web site is 100% Flash and skips pages uncontrollably, so the chance of it reaching an audience is slim. Nutjobs.

They are hoping to find an 80% solution (2, Insightful)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264307)

Perhaps, because 80% is better than what it is now, they think.

Part of the problem may be that the parents themselves are afraid of the 'net, still. If the parents can't handle the unrequested porn ads, they're going to have a hard time monitoring the kids.

Considering what I've had to go through to be able to monitor myself, I can't say that I blame the parents who don't want to have to harden themselves against it. It's not that the body is dirty or scary, it's that it can be so interesting that it gets in the way of doing necessary things like working and talking to people. You know, relating to the people who are physically near you.

Oh, and I guess there is also that wish for sex to remain a "special" thing.

Can I play? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263659)

We all can agree there are some subjects that we wish our children not to view (XXX, Barney, drugs), and other subjects we do not mind (Disney, Birds, Bees [not together]).

What about the "grey" subjects? Where should breast cancer research be? How about the arts? OMG (Oh My Golly), nude photos?

Should John-Boy see that video on how barn yard animals reproduce?

Who gets to make the call on intelligent design or evolution?

A.C.

CP80 = SCO, sort of. (3, Insightful)

expro (597113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263737)

The top person behind CP80 is Ralph Yarro, of Canopy / SCO / etc. fame, who tried to defraud the Nordas, IBM, Novell, the creators of Linux, etc. He has no ethics whatsoever, but in his book, banning content that he deems not fit for you is completely appropriate.

These people are technically ignorant, and want to gain by enforcing their new laws what no voluntary-based action of good intent would win them. Ignorant lawsuits, and ignorant laws, not created with a modicum of thought or sympathy for anyone besides the profit in becoming the gateway to control the internet and tax and regulate everything according to their "morals". Never mind that he could just as easily set up some port besides 80 with a technology that enabled whatever degree of filtering he wanted and people who agreed with him could move to that port and technology, but he is a dictator and a fraud at heart.

There are plenty of people in Utah and especially at Brighan Young University (where real dissent is not tolerated) who will blindly follow and greatly praise such a person [meridianmagazine.com] , both for putting a lid on internet-style free thought, and also in the same breath for trying to eliminate Linux, that hotbed of hackerdom, people who don't know that Windows is what is good for them. As much as they claim to respect your freedom on other ports, don't believe them.

Re:CP80 = SCO, sort of. (1)

loftyhauser (1149267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264321)

Have you every met Ralph Yarro? I have. At Brigham Young University, at a discussion concerning CP80 and potential solutions to what is, in my opinion, a scourge of porn that is more available than it every should be. He's actually a decent guy. I'm with him on this one. I gave him a bit of a hard time for the whole SCO-Linux lawsuit, and we agreed to disagree on that matter, but I'm behind him here.

You know, you might be a little more open about your biases and agenda (BYU, where real dissent is not tolerated?). What's the story? What's your slant? I'll be open and honest: I'm a BYU graduate, I'm an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I grew up in Utah (haven't lived there in about 12 years, though), and yet, I'm a Linux fan. But I've met Ralph, and I think he's a decent guy. Technically ignorant? Only interested in profit? I think not. Someone who has seen the effect of porn on the lives of young university students and is trying to find a solution to a vexing problem.

bad faith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27265311)

There are solutions and if the goal of this movement was really about protecting children the tools that exist today would be enough. But as you admit, probably unintentionally, what you really want is to force your religious views on adults. If your side was being open about that this thing would never get off the ground, but I guess dishonesty is OK if that's what God's work requires.

Re:CP80 = SCO, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27265313)

Right - so you like Free Software but you can't handle Free Speech. Thanks for the insight. Your personal assessment of Ralph Yarro speaks volumes.

The near-perfect demonstration (1)

expro (597113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265511)

You demonstrate the point. That you, as a BYU alumnus, would respond to defend Ralph Yarro was perfect, while ultimately ignoring the moral dimension of his actions, which are clearly on the record. I do not think getting close enough to feel the mesmerizing effect he apparently radiates for the likes of you would make a difference to me. I see plenty of people like him.

At BYU, obviously, any mention of sex or anything aligned against the prejudices of the hierarchy (anti-war? anti proposition 8?) is immorality in the extreme while extreme fraud and dishonesty of the worst sort that Ralph or any other of the Gods of the community is guilty of don't even register as being fundamentally evil in character. BYU and Mormondom are by no means the only place this is true, but they come up frequently enough. Your complete lack of morality is obvious to most everyone else. You all love a good fraud, as long as those involved pay monies to the church. How dare anyone bring this up when you are promoting your God-given right to force censorship on others. How noble that you gave Ralph a hard time over his actions with respect to Linux, the Nordas, etc. You sure showed him!

Re:CP80 = SCO, sort of. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265527)

I'm sure Ralph Yarro can be a respectable, even charming fellow. However, his grasp of SCO's legal situation was drastically flawed. Likewise, his grasp of the "vexing problem" of pornography as demonstrated by CP80 is also drastically flawed. I'm not seeing much so far that supports the idea that the guy has any technical understanding.

I should also note that Ralph Yarro's concern for the "effect of porn on the lives of young university students" would be better directed towards an upbringing where these kids are ill prepared to deal with the vices of the real world around them. There is no need to concern himself with whether those same vices should or should not be made available to the rest of us.

ICANN is Accepting Public Comments on Petition (2, Informative)

RDGROSS (1504745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27263769)

Members of the general public and encouraged to submit comments to ICANN until 5 April on this proposed constituency from CP80/Robert Yarro. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety [icann.org]

Comments on this petition should be sent to ICANN via the email address "cyber-safety-petition@icann.org" mailto:cyber-safety-petition@icann.org [mailto]

Yarro's anti-porn crusaders are currently bombarding ICANN with form letters supporting this censorship initiative. See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cyber-safety-petition/mail3.html [icann.org]

Here is more information on this issue from IP Justice and the Internet Governance Project: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2009/03/19/robert-yarro-and-his-anti-porn-crusaders-march-on-icann/ [ipjustice.org] http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/3/17/4125801.html [internetgovernance.org]

The internet does not have a pornography problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27263951)

The internet has a pornography feature!

Brilliant failure (3, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264015)

This is a brilliant attempt at a failure.

    It is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.

    I used to work in adult entertainment. One of the big (BIG) things is availability to customers. Regardless if it's mainstream or not, most customers (readers here excluded) are barely functional on the Internet. They have a hard time trying to even go to a site. I'm amazed at how many people have to go to their home page, which happens to be a search engine, to type the url into the search box to get the site. They can't grasp that you enter it in the address bar. If httpp (http for porn) is put on port 81? We're suppose to believe that they can type http://porn.example.com81/ [porn.example.com81] or httpp://porn.example.com?? It'll never happen.

    At times, I tried to move things off to other ports. You'd be amazed how many people couldn't grasp the concept. Even putting a mail server web client on http://mail.example.com:8080/ [example.com] completely throws them, even though you write it down for them, and it's right in front of them when they try to go there.

    Other options have been attempted over the years. The meta tag pics-label was suppose to show what kind of content you were serving up. On very rare occasions, I see it used. Usually I don't.

    There were other site rating tags that came and went. They weren't generally used by the browsers. They weren't implemented very frequently on web sites. In the end, they died. If someone was running an adult web site, they honestly wouldn't want to run the risk of having their content blocked by the provider, when the customer did want to view it. So, nothing identifying to say "porn".

    Even the .xxx TLD was a spiffy keen idea, but that didn't have a prayer. "Please move all of your domains to the .xxx TLD. Ya, right. First problem. You may have different ownership of porn.com and porn.net. They'd both have to complete for that new position. Then you have to tell all of your viewers, "Go to porn.xxx, we're shutting down porn.com in 30 days". Some clients would only view every few months, or even every few years. They wouldn't have seen the memo, and would then be out of luck. No one, regardless of the business they're in, wants to lose their customer base because they had to move. That's why when you see a physical storefront move, you'll usually see a note taped in the front window saying "We've moved to 14 main street, 3 blocks over. Come visit us there!" those moves are usually unavoidable. It's better for a business to expand to a second location, than to ever shut down their first one. Frequently, it's a death sentence.

    I know killing off the adult entertainment industry is a motive in wanting to force them to move. It won't work, but it'll really shake up the industry. New companies will get lucky and make more money. Old companies will be very very upset that they went from multi-million dollar empires, down to nothing. In the end, sites will still pop up as .com's on port 80, and they'll make good money by avoiding the new found filters.

    If it wasn't an idea that would hurt things, why not move the mainstream sites over to a new "safer" place?

    It then brings up the question, what's "safe". What's safe for my kid may not be safe for your kid. I run a news site. We carry news. What if you didn't want your kid to know about wars, or famine, rape, murder, drugs, or gay/lesbian/bi sexual preferences? Better not let them read the news.

    Is a woman showing cleavage acceptable? How about in a bikini? Lingerie? Topless? Full frontal nudity? Implied sexual intercourse? Obvious and visual sexual intercourse? You may not want a 10 year old seeing too much cleveage, so should that be in the porn domain? Now you've moved things including the nightly news away from their prying eyes.

    The ONLY way for a parent to protect their children from what they believe to be harmful is to actually parent them. You don't (or shouldn't) let your kid go to the park on their own. They don't go to the mall on their own. They don't even wander around the video store unattended. "Mommy, why isn't the lady on this movie wearing any clothes?" I don't advocate parenting that hides the real world from children. They need to be guided into it. A 2 year old doesn't need to be watching the news, but as they reach adolescence they need to know what the real world is. Otherwise, when they finally move out on their own, they're going to dive into this whole new world that they've been sheltered from for 18 years, and get deeper into it than you could have ever imagined.

    Dammit, supervise your children! I have kids. My friends have kids. I talk to them about things. I tell them what is age appropriate and what isn't. A 13 year old wants to see a dirty magazine or web site. I don't let him (or her). I explain "that isn't appropriate for you right now. When you're older". I had to tell the son of a friend, who is 13, that holding hands and prolonged hugging isn't appropriate quite yet. "Look, later on it's fine. When you two are older, I'll chaperone you two to the movies. It will be age appropriate eventually, just not right now. Go ride your bicycle, play basketball, have fun. You have an awful long time to learn about that other stuff, and we'll talk more about it then."

    It's really hard to reinforce "age appropriate" to kids, when other parents don't. A few doors down, there's a 14 or 15 year old couple in pretty damned close to foreplay in the driveway on occasion. How do you tell the kid who respects you "that's not appropriate" when kids a few doors down are doing it.

    One came to me asking me about dirty dreams. I'm open and honest. We talk about pretty women. I can't even attempt to judge what pretty girls his age are, so I don't try. I haven't been a young teenager for so long, they're all just kids to me. But, we can both spot a pretty girl on TV (broadcast TV, don't get the wrong idea). :) As life goes on, these kids will be willing to ask questions and learn the right and safe ways to do things. They'll be more likely to not be 16 and have a kid of their own on the way. The sheltered children will be the ones sneaking around and doing the wrong things when you least expect it.

    Be a good parent. Talk to your kids, even if they don't want to. As time goes on, they'll respect you more for being open with them.

Re:Brilliant failure (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264375)

You may have different ownership of porn.com and porn.net.

Whoa... There's more than one porn site on the internet?

Re:Brilliant failure (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265233)

    Yup, there's two, and now you know them both. :)

Re:Brilliant failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264445)

Why don't these people get this? Because what they say their purpose is and what it actually is are entirely different things usually. They want an end to anything they dislike (often it appears that they are heavy users of the very thing they are fighting against, perhaps a bit of "me thinks the lady doth protest too much" to paraphrase).

It is absolutely silly to think that you can actually successfully control what your kids see. My parents had no idea I watched porn when I was eight, until my cousin (who was the one who showed them to me in the first place) told them years later. And then at thirteen a friend stole a portion of his dad's Playboy's and smuggled them to my house by giving me a bean bag for my birthday (for a fort my parent's gave me for the same birthday). My mom always thought I was up to far worse things than I actually was after that. But she knew there was nothing she could do about it.

Unless the kids are chained up in a basement or something, parents really have no idea what their kids are doing. All you can do is try to teach them the hows and whys of life, and watch the choices they make. That's all parents have ever been able to do, really.

Re:Brilliant failure (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264475)

Dammit, supervise your children! I have kids. My friends have kids. I talk to them about things. I tell them what is age appropriate and what isn't. A 13 year old wants to see a dirty magazine or web site. I don't let him (or her). I explain "that isn't appropriate for you right now. When you're older". I had to tell the son of a friend, who is 13, that holding hands and prolonged hugging isn't appropriate quite yet. "Look, later on it's fine. When you two are older, I'll chaperone you two to the movies. It will be age appropriate eventually, just not right now. Go ride your bicycle, play basketball, have fun. You have an awful long time to learn about that other stuff, and we'll talk more about it then."

13 years old and not appropriate to hold hands? Something tells me you're in for more than a few surprises over the next five years....

Re:Brilliant failure (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265275)

    It was more like, her parents, and some other parents in the neighborhood are very conservative. If they are caught holding hands, then it's very likely she will be forbidden from playing with him at all.

    He seems to like her, so I gave him some friendly guy advice.

    In actuality, I told him something like, "You can't do that there. I know you like her, and apparently she likes you, so if you're going to hold hands or whatever, don't do it right in front of the house where all the neighbors can see. But, don't go hide somewhere either, that's going to be too obvious, and people are going to assume you're doing worse than holding hands. If you're going to do it, don't get caught. It's not me you have to worry about, it's everyone else."

    His mother sent me out to yell at him, so I went with what I felt was better for him.

    I didn't formally approve of it. I just gave guy advice. :) I know he'll talk to me about other stuff in the future. He already knows that I have some godlike omnipotent powers, and can see everything he's doing. Really, he's only 13, so anything he does is pretty obvious, but I'll continue with the illusion for now. I told him it's better off to tell me what he's up to, rather than me find out.

    Ya, when the day comes and he's interested in going farther, I'm going to make sure he has protection AND uses it. Well, not make absolutely sure, but make sure he's facilitated. "There's something in the front seat of my car. The windows are down, and the doors are unlocked. I'll be in the garage doing something (anything) else. If that something happens to disappear, I'll just assume I lost it somewhere." That won't be any time too soon though.

    She seems like a nice girl, and her mom is cute, so I'm assuming that she's attractive to him. :)

    I'm sure the day will come too, when I notice beer missing from the fridge, that I'll just have to overlook, as long as I know he's safe. When he starts driving, I'll have the very very firm discussion with him about it. It'll be the whole, "Under no circumstances at all, no matter what, will you drive if you've had anything to drink."

    He's not my kid, but I've been around him since he was 1, so he knows when I'm playing, and when I'm very serious.

    One of his friends, about his age, is interested in motorcycles. He has a little scooter that his mom got him. I've had some very serious talks about helmets, and what can happen when you screw up on a motorcycle. I took him and some other kids out for fast food (payment for helping me move some stuff). He really liked the cashier. Hey, she was in her mid 20's and drop dead gorgeous. I realized that the way to get him out of the motorcycle interest, and into something safer was "you know, you'll never get her on a date. Girls like motorcycles. They're fast and dangerous. If you ask her out, she's not going to go, because she'll get all dressed up and her hair done, and you're going to ask her to ruin it all on the drive. He wants a car now. :)

    I used to love motorcycles. I also had my fair share of mishaps, which luckily never left any permanent damage. Now I'm much happier being surrounded by a good layer of protection. I got side swiped the other day, and he saw the aftermath on my car. I told him, "On a motorcycle, I'd be dead. In my car, it was just enough to upset me." Sadly enough, it was the truth.

fuck a trolL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264039)

what they think is Watersh3d eesay, one common goal - I type this. our chances dying. All major could save it Juggernaut either BSD machines, which gathers

Not port 80 (2, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264057)

How about this? We keep Port 80, but they get all the IPV4 ports above 70000.

Takedown Notice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264175)

"Part of the CP80 solution includes free technologies that would allow an individual to report violations that appeared on the Open channels. The information reported would include copies of the offending content, time and date stamp, URLs, IP address and other information that would allow an individual to take action against violators."

Sounds so much like the DMCA.

Acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27264289)

CP was a good name for this site...

Just won't work and why (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264409)

As many, many, *MANY* others have said, CP80 just wouldn't work. I'm going to ignore any technical reasons for the moment. Let's just grant them that a system could easily be put in place to sign users up for "Community Ports" (filtered) or "Open Ports" (non-filtered). Ok, we have that system ready to go. Now what?

First of all, we need to determine what gets filtered. That seems easy. Cheryl Preston said we just need to filter the "material harmful to minors." Except, who decides what is harmful to minors? And minors of what age? Is nudity harmful to a minor? What if that minor is a 15 year old and the nudity was in the context of a safe-sex video? What if that nudity was an article in National Geographic? What about curse words. Surely any curse word should be filtered. So any forum that lets a member curse one time much pack up and move to the filtered side of the room. What about religious discussions? Would saying "God doesn't exist" be harmful to a minor? What about a page saying that Santa doesn't exist? That could be a bit traumatic for a 5 year old. We'd better filter any page that says anything negative about religion. Personally, my wife and I find Barney and Teletubbies to be harmful to minors (and adults). Could we lobby to have them filtered? (I think that last one might drum up more support for the plan.)

Obviously, we would need to appoint a group to decide what is harmful and what isn't. I'm sure Cheryl Preston and her organization would be happy to gather a team. With their discerning eye, they would be the final arbitrators of whether your site was good or an evil, child harming menace. Unfortunately for you, you fall in the latter category. Time to move, right? Except you happen to live in France and host your server in Belgium. No problem, CP80 has a plan. First a "customer" (read: a CP80 member with time on their hands) reports you to The Regulatory Agency. They tell you to take down the content or go to the filtered side. You don't comply. The Agency (stacked with CP80 members) rules you in violation and the "customer" can take you to court... except that the "customer" is trying to take you, a French citizen with a server in Belgium, to civil court in the USA. {Mr. Rodgers} Can you say Jurisdiction? I knew you could! {/Mr. Rodgers}

In the end, the entire plan rests on a false premise:

"permits browsing on an Internet with the same pornography protections as in the real world"

The Internet is completely different from the "real world." In the "real world", the person that I'm talking to is likely to be an American citizen or, at least, visiting America (and thus subject to its laws). In the Internet, the person I'm talking to might be from the US, but could also be from Europe, Australia, China, Russia, etc. This makes it easy to enforce country-specific rules in the "real world." If that person I'm talking to in the "real world" decides to strip down and perform a lewd gesture, they'll find themselves arrested under US law. If the Internet person does the same thing, their home country might permit it. No one country could enforce its laws on the entire world. Imagine how we'd feel if suddenly the Chinese government was able to say that all mentions of their government must be positive and anyone making any Tienanmen Square reference would be extradited to China and shot.

You just can't try to force the Internet to fit into the "real world" mold perfectly. Any attempts to do so will fail miserably.

Would like to discuss, but... (1)

PinkPanther (42194) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264463)

Notice that CP80's "Get Involved" discussions page [cp80.org] is 404?

Already filtering port 80... (1)

bradbury (33372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264643)

I hate to inform people but Verizon hosting DSL lines in the vicinity of Boston is already filtering port 80. This is in an attempt to force people to upgrade from a personal DSL line to a business DSL line. So it is not a content based filter but an incoming/outgoing based filter on that specific port. But it could be argued that in a content neutral specific environment none of the incoming or outgoing content should be filtered.

Re:Already filtering port 80... (2, Interesting)

bradbury (33372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264717)

In case this isn't clear, this is an attempt to try and keep people from running web servers (on port 80) off of a "personal" DSL line. I have ample examples of the various Bots (Google, Yahoo, MS, etc.) browsing my web site on port 8080, but that never took place when I only had port 80 open. Most presumably because Verizon blocked the traffic.

Now of course Verizon could resort to blocking all incoming/outgoing http traffic but this would require more CPU intensive time on their routers.

And then of course we would respond with entirely encrypted protocol transfers. Thus leading to an impass where services we are paying for are disallowed because they cannot be interpreted as "right" or "wrong" services. Welcome to England where it appears that big brother will always be watching you.

Pick the odd one out (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27264877)

Existing constituencies include 'Commercial and Business,' 'gTLD,' 'Registrars,' 'Non-commercial,' etc.

I'm not sure what Gay Transgendered Lesbian Dykes have to do with this issue.

C3P0 did what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27265099)

This is like the .sex proposal that comes up every few years with ICANN. Its a nice idea but just wont work, it would be far easier to create a alternate port browser from scratch than attempt to herd cats and reign in all the "bad" stuff on the net.

It would also be an absolute failure since the concept of ports is completely foreign to most end users. Perhaps if it was "special" browser geared towards it's target audience it might work in the sense of those "special" video outlets and edit the crap out of them for their puritan niche.

Just set the evil bit (2, Funny)

Lunzo (1065904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265103)

I have a simpler solution for them right here:
RFC 3514 [faqs.org]

Treason (1)

Styginie (1486747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265131)

This is Treason, violating knowingly the US Supreme Court Ruling on the 1st Amendment by singling out through legislation a person or group for limitation of general availability by class, creation of a sub-class of U.S. Citizen, and knowing fraud in publication of prior censorship models under new codewords as was seen in the alt, binary, and warez newsgroup censorship of the 1990s. Certain U.S. States also have Constitutional Amendments against this limitation of Free Speech by denial of service through knowing means based on content and suppression of report (Title 18 USC Sec 1519 and 1513e) which would make denial of requests to data by any mechanism from a willing requesting party to a provider a Federal felony act. The chart CP80 shows is incorrect, in that it presumes the ICANN and US DoD have authority over the backbone traffic and use of the Internet. While Interstate law does apply and jurisdiction over criminal activity does apply, the OWNERSHIP and RIGHT OF USE including method of use are private in nature to the commercial carriers and independent server hosts - all of whom have the right to use ANY PORT They wish for ANY SERVICE and are protected from censorship by virtue of the unity of common ports for common (vital, commercial, business) traffic such as 80 and 443 (HTTP and HTTPS). This debate is old (as TCP/IP) and this face only shows the tragic low, gross incompetence, and criminal unamerican nature of charity contributions by firms participating with CP80.org to promote this awful concept on the American People. The CDA2 was STRUCK DOWN and the Internet Deemed APPROPRIATE FOR AUDIENCES OF THE AGE OF MAJORITY in the Supreme Court (18+ in most states of the Union). This operation is therefor in knowing conflict with the Supreme Court decision, operating to undermine the United States Constitution, and such an act overt treason of the worst sort. Yes, porn can be bad. So can politics, religion, and diet pill spam. But the cult of the child excuse will not and shall never justify the open act of sedition or treason against the United States or its highest court, nor legislation proposed or passed circumvent those protections (Article 6, US Constitution) or rights of any single State (Article 4 Section 2). 15,000 dead, and all they can do is concern themselves with pornography? 3.5Million animals euthanized annually in the USA, and they want to double the cost of Internet maintenance prior to legislating against industries based on cultural, religious, and sexual taboos? Monsters. Child-like hate-mongers. One and all.

Re:Treason (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27265497)

This is Treason, violating knowingly the US Supreme Court Ruling on the 1st Amendment

No it isn't, and all your ignorant ranting won't make it so. Treason [wikipedia.org] is explicitly and narrowly defined in the Constitution, partially to keep it from being abused by people like you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>