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!

Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-can't-define-pr0n-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it dept.

Censorship 574

vicpylon writes "A Utah businessman and his non-profit organization wants to limit pornography to certain ports in the TCP/IP protocol. He is literally suggesting legislatively restricting porn sites to certain ports, so that the "offensive" content is easier to block. This is not workable on so many levels that it is laughable. International adult sites not subject to US laws, proxy servers, enforcement issues all leap to my tired mind as major flaws in his plan. He is lobbying congress, so do not be surprised to see this discussed by some headline grabbing politico. "

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

Let me guess: (5, Funny)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127946)

Port number 69?

Re:Let me guess: (0)

!ramirez (106823) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127970)

Sorry, no. Already in use by TFTP.

What kind of NERD ARE YOU?

Re:Let me guess: (1)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128041)

Perhaps for UDP...

Feeling humbled now Mr. Nerd?

Re:Let me guess: (5, Funny)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127998)

According to the /etc/services file on my box, 69/udp is already taken by tftp, though there's no reason why 69/tcp couldn't be assigned to www-pr0n or whatever.

The same /etc/services file indicates that port 30 is unassigned for both tcp and udp; that'd be my pick, as it's XXX in Roman numerals.


Re:Let me guess: (1)

jmony (245233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127999)

So, who downloads porn from HTTP anyways? Are we going to put HTTP and P2P protocols all on the same port, based on content?

I suggest ports for financial news, spam, penis enlarger advertisements, and so on. Yea, really, that's a good solution. Also, I suggest that we put all the sexshops in the same city... that will prevent them from being in other places...

Re:Let me guess: (0, Flamebait)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128023)

Well, if you are trying to block Bittorrent traffic, which is mostly porn anyways, block port range 6881-6889. Many people won't use the random ports anyway.

Re:Let me guess: (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128056)

Excuse me princess, but I download my linux distros, music (creative commons of course), videos (CC and PD), and game patches if they're large enough to bother with using Bittorrent. Unlike practically every other P2P application, BT actually has some premise out side of porn.

Still waiting on that BT-Browser fusion device to combat slashdottings...

Re:Let me guess: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128077)

Port number 69?

Don't you mean "pr0t"?

Re:Let me guess: (3, Funny)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128094)

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

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

Re:Let me guess: (0)

stx23 (14942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128184)

Take my wife.


Wait, wait, wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14127950)

BLOCK porn? Why would you do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128059)

"Why would you do that?"

Because legal minors can't own credit cards and can't buy subscripitions to the sites. No porn site wants to serve porn to kids but there's no way of detecting them.

It sucks (pun not intended), I wish they'd have special IP addresses set aside for kids and a 'DO NOT SEND PORN' list of those IP addresses so they can be blocked easily.

Re: (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128139)

No children have their own ISP account (again no credit cards or jobs), so how would ISP's know which customers have kids? Hand out "kid-IP's" by request? But then the parent's couldn't get their porn.

Parents would decide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128172)

Parents would decide to either have a child friendly IP addresss or not. Client side software doesn't work because it can be bypassed, complicated IDs don't help because you lose privacy. They could always buy 2 IP addresses if it's so important to them.

I want to restrict things, too. (4, Insightful)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127951)

Unfortunately, what I want to restrict, in general, is the power of the people in charge... Political types just aren't very good at running things for anyone but themselves and their buddies. This is not a (particular) jibe at the Bush administration, just a general observation about the worst suck-ups on this planet, the politicians.

Re:I want to restrict things, too. (5, Insightful)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128013)

And yet, for some reason, whenever the people speak, they keep electing those who want to take more of our rights away in the name of protecting the children, or protecting the environment, or protecting old people, or protecting stupid people, etc. Will the balance ever shift in the other direction?

Re:I want to restrict things, too. (5, Funny)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128158)

Will the balance ever shift in the other direction?
What, you mean protect us from the children? Amen brother, those kids are ruining my porn experience.

Re:I want to restrict things, too. (5, Insightful)

rundgren (550942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128210)

I consider myself the "political type," yet I agree that politicians should have as little power as necessary to keep society safe. Especially here in Norway, with it's socialist traditions, most of the politicians should learn to let go of their power and give more power to the individual and the market.

But: unlike most people I don't think politicians are evil assholes, suck-ups or idiots. I think they have mostly good intentions, but often select the wrong solution - not because of evil intentions, but because of short-sightedness, lack of understanding of consequences, wrong priorites, lack of respect for the indidual's right to autonomy and so-on.

Bottom Line: The only way to improve politicians is to become one yourself.

The port that will be used... (3, Funny)

quigonn (80360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127952)

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

Port 6969 (0, Redundant)

se2schul (667721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127953)

ya baby!!!

Re:Port 6969 (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128020)

That sounds like a clusterfuck - which the entire idea is, anyway...

Re:Port 6969 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128087)

Giving away my age but wtf, that's my birthday, and for at least 20 of the last 35 years
I've gotten a lot of mileage outa that and the cheap line about me being a cunning linguist.

Ontopic - so another crazy know nothing is calling for a his mad idea to restrict porn.!!? People we have a problem. Too many uneducated, uninformed, technologically ignorant people have something they want to say about computers, an opinion to foist on the rest of us who actually use and understand the things. Especially these increasingly fashionable 'security' firms and politicians. These people are the last to know anything about anything, the usual fearmongering, nannying dogooders. Look you cretins - go get a hobby or a real job. What about fishing? Or football? Just leave the clever technical stuff to us geeks and go do something you're qualified to talk about, like the weather or something. Insufferable idiots.

People should learn (5, Interesting)

whereizben (702407) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127955)

That if your kids are doing it, a.) you might want to try getting more involved with them so they understand why you think porn is "evil" and b.) they may not actually be hurt by it, but who knows. As for the technological aspect, it is ridiculous, but people don't seem to understand these sort of things when they suggest them. Now whoever opposes it, even if on the basis of saying it won't be plausible, they will be "unpatriotic"!

Re:People should learn (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14127973)

I was terribly damaged by porn when I was only 3. My father had a huge porn collection which unfortunately fell on top of me.

Re:People should learn (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128098)

The same thing happened to me when my parents LP collection fell on me. Perhaps we should ban music too? One fell swoop and all that?

.xxx domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14127957)

This is just going to be as much of a failure as the .xxx TLD.

I would actually prefer a solution like this (1)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127959)

If we can keep porn on the net by keeping it in a special place im happy with that.
Failure to find a good out of site out of mind solution to porn will just lead to the day of cleaning up the internet.

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128007)

Except it's a slippery slope. If specific content is restricted to specific ports, then the next thing you see will be all kinds of pressure groups pushing for ISP's to filter that port.

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128092)

But who decides what is pornography? Is a site about breast cancer? What about a movie web site for an 18 rated film? How about an anti-abortion site? How about some of the latest RIAA-sponsored acts who seem to sell more on sex appeal than musical talent? How about any picture of a woman exposing any skin at all, and not wearing traditional muslim dress?

If you want to make the web safe for impressionable people, then create a .kids domain that is heavily censored (expensive to register a subdomain, money goes to policing it) and only allow children who are likely to be traumatised by seeing sex / violence / social commentary / intelligent conversation / whatever to browse that, at their parents discression.

Feel free to moderate this redundant, since exactly the same point was raised in all of the articles about the .xxx domain.

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128196)

True, there is the question of where to draw the line, but some things are clearly porn. If you're not sure what I mean then visit this site [] , one of my favorites. That is clearly porn.

I think that your suggestion and the "porn port" ideas are not mutually exclusive. Together they could make a better solution than one by itself.

Also, I don't think that pornographers and their customers (I'm looking at you, Ohreally!) should mind having porn segregated into a "pron ghetto". It is a preventative defense against those who would seek to eliminate them entirely from the internet ("We're good netizens, we're doing our part").

But most of all, it would make it easier for me to find porn if it was all in one place. We just need to make such a move to a porn ghetto economically attractive to the pornographers as well as ethically attractive.

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128100)

This reminds me of an old joke...

Mickey came over to visit Goofy, and found him working in the garden. There were little plots of land labeled "Tomatoes," "Peppers," and, to Mickey's surprise, "Weeds." He asked, "Why on Earth would you want to plant weeds?" Goofy replied, "Well, better set aside a place for them, than let them grow everywhere!"

this port (-1, Redundant)

im_electronic (658763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127961)

I suggest we use port 69 or 0666 ot 6660

Re:this port (1)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127978)

69 is TFTP, 666 is Doom, 6660 is unassigned but in a range commonly used for IRC.

Re:this port (3, Funny)

vidnet (580068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127987)

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

Porn in other words.

Re:this port (1)

admdrew (782761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128153)

Porn in other words.

Hey, hey, hey. IRC can be used for pirating [] too.

I'm actually kidding. IRC is used ONLY to promote mature and academic discussions [] regarding many lofty educational and child-safe topics.

I love slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14127962)

You can always expect the unexpected! Yesterday it was 10 hours before they changed stories, now it's 10 minutes. The dupes, the trolls... In a little while we may even see a partridge in a pair tree!

Try living in Dubai (1)

axonis (640949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127964)

Etisalat [] does a good job already of blocking all porn in the UAE, except in the Media/Internet City Free Zones.

Re:Try living in Dubai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128048)

On top of the normal filters, they're also using a special filter that checks if an image has too much skin, and such, blocks the images.

Qualifications (5, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127966)

Hmm - this wingnut used to be the CEO for The Canopy Group and is a major SCO stockholder? Yeah, he'll be the first guy I run to for tech advice....

Re:Qualifications (5, Insightful)

bloodredsun (826017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128010)

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

Re:Qualifications (2, Informative)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128101)

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

Re:Qualifications (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128125)

Jebus Crispy. If I were going to design a parody Web site to make fun of overpriced consulting firms that do nothing but spout buzzwords and suck up their clients' cash ... that's the site I'd make.

Re:Qualifications (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128173)

The error message (Acceleration) said it was running Red Hat. No SCO Unix for him!

He doesn't even have the generic stock picture of the mixed group of happy employees. Most tiny shops have one of those, especially the single person operations.

time and time again (5, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127967)

Time and time again we see that the courts and politics in general are just flat out not equipped to handle technical issues- then throw in people who don't know much about technology to begin with and you really have a problem.

I don't know if there is a solution but to wait long enough to get a techy judge in the supreme court (and lower courts hopefully), get techy guys in congress, etc.. Some how I don't think we'll live long enough.

Re:time and time again (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128070)

Techies like the facts and to just get the truth said, even if people don't like it when it's out there.

Politics is the art of manipulating "the truth" so make yourself look superior to everyone else. The two clash heavily and so it's very unlikely we will see any geeks with any real point in our life time.

But hey maybe Joe Sixpack will wake up and see this all and at a long shot we'll stop the bullshit fest that is politics today.

One port to rule them all (4, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127969)

It really is obvious, but one of the reasons this wouldn't work is that it would force all porn transports (HTTP, Usenet, FTP, Bittorrent, ...) to listen on the same port number. Yeah, it could probably be done if there's a truly dire need to do so (eg. on corporate firewalls, everything proxies over :80 these days), but it's almost certainly always a bad idea to do.

Re:One port to rule them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128035)

It's not supposed to deal with other protocols than HTTP, and that wouldn't even be necessary, seeing that most naive users consider "the internet" and "world wide web" to be the same thing. Parents or employers could just block anything but HTTP(S), and the offending content would be gone. Most businesses already block anything but 80 and 443 anyway.

Of course, it's still stupid. And still an attempt at censorship.

Re:One port to rule them all (1)

hkultala (69204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128050)

We could have many ports,
like specifying all 69xx ports to be "porn ports.

this way port 6980 could be phttp ( porn http ),
6921 pftp ( port ftp ) ,
6922 pscp ( porn scp )


though we need to find a "free port range" which contains many ports not used by any common protocols/programs.

Re:One port to rule them all (1)

hkultala (69204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128064)

.. and 6925 as "viagra-add delivery port" ;)

Re:One port to rule them all (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128078)

And a way for your EMule servers to differentiate porn from MP3s, and only put porn on the 6999 port, and put MP3's on port 4662, and for clients to figure it all out.


Re:One port to rule them all (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128093)

Better to come up with a protocol..

ptcp 'porn tcp'

Everything stays on the same port, but uses ptcp instead of tfp.

(It's still a stupid idea, but so is the entire fxxxing article!).

Idiot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14127979)

Don't tell the rest of the world what can and can't be on the Net. The Internet is not a wholly American network.

This is a non-starter. (5, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127985)

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

Eeh? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128159)

And condoning it is really just one step away from being all for it, so the headline really should read "Utah Businessman All For Porn"?

Yeah baby! How's THAT for spin?

I guess working with SCO caused his brain to rot (5, Informative)

vidarh (309115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127990)

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

Re:I guess working with SCO caused his brain to ro (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128124)

Chicken and egg. Are you sure that it wasn't his brain that caused SCO to rot?

Mmm, free porn (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14127994)

So how much jail time would you get for proxying the porn port to 80? Its things like this that make the world scared of a US gov controlled internet.

HaHA (0, Offtopic)

Ragein (901507) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128000)

At least our idiots have just given us more drinking time look what urs r doin. :) The land of the free? (Insert RATM lyric)

I wonder if.... (1, Funny)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128009)

This idea is from Ralph Yarro []

I wonder if it will be as successful as the SCO group [] under his leadership?

Ha, Utahans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128011)

Yep, I'm from Utah, thankfully not born but still living here. The politicians here seem to be jackasses, and my reasoning is the morman religion which controls the government in this state. For more info on jackass Utah politicans, see: Orrin Hatch []

Here's an even better suggestion: (4, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128015)

Just block every port that could possibly be suspected to be used to transfer p0rn, i.e. 0-65535. You know, just like with terrorists ? Just being a suspect is proof enough.

Then your computer and kids will be safe from p0rn from the Internet

Re:Here's an even better suggestion: (2, Funny)

iphayd (170761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128083)

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

Re:Here's an even better suggestion: (2, Funny)

maxzilla (786061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128095)

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

Re:Here's an even better suggestion: (1)

hakr89 (719001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128131)

And then the kids tunnel their porn through an ICMP Tunnel [] and the whole plan falls apart.

Front-page worthy? (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128016)

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

Re:Front-page worthy? (3, Funny)

confusion here (827020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128052)

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

utah and the internet (5, Funny)

romit_icarus (613431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128019)

Utah Woman Deletes the Internet! By Tom 7 (Dissociated Press) REDMOND: Millions of frustrated calls rushed into internet service providers this past thursday as "The Information Superhighway" was reported Missing In Action for several days. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) traced the problem to a home in Utah where Doris Packuko resides. She was allegedly found "hysterical and crying", police say. "That much information flowing through the phone lines all at once generates a lot of heat," Doug Wernicke of the IETF told us, "We just followed the smell of burning fiber optics." "Apparently, she just deleted The Internet right off her desktop. Even after being warned, 'are you sure you want to delete The Internet?', she persisted." Experts claim that this is a major problem with The Information Superhighway, perhaps even worse than animal pornography. "The Internet is a great cooperative work, built by millions of people. It is so unfortunate that it can be ruined by just one person. Thank God we were able to save it," commented Packuko's neighbor. The IETF was able to recover most of The Internet by opening up Packuko's Recycle Bin and dragging The Internet back onto the desktop. The rest was restored from the master backup copy kept on Zip Disk in the pentagon. Puckuko claims ignorance was the cause of her act. "I just didn't know. I was trying to clean up my desktop and I deleted it. I ... I just didn't realize." Microsoft Corporation reports that they are currently working on a bug fix.

The better answer... (4, Funny)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128021)

Is to implement a special top-level-domain for porn, something like the .xxx domain that was proposed (and rejected IIRC).

That would have almost no technical issues and be just as easy to block as this braindead proposal.

Might I suggest port 80/http? (5, Funny)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128022)

Everyone okay with that?

Re:Might I suggest port 80/http? (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128167)

I was going to suggest that too. Sure there will be some collateral damage, but casulties are to be expected in a war. I have a feeling that porn is in its last throes now.

- Dick C.

Wow! (5, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128025)

So to sum it up: A Utah businessman nobody cares about plans on asking politicians to implement an unworkable idea. This wouldn't make page 9 of a high-school newspaper, what's it doing on Slashdot?

Re:Wow! (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128076)

The fact that Ralph Yarro is involved and is claiming to have gotten positive feedback from relativel heavyweights like Orrin Hatch is more than enough reason to start worrying about it.

Re:Wow! (2, Interesting)

maxzilla (786061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128127)

unfortunately the politicians don't know its not a workable plan. Maybe if they spoke to someone who could explain how dumb it was before they get on a CNN press confrence we could stop this. maybe instead of making laws to restrict porn we could make laws to make sure politicians check the technical feasability of a plan before they run with it...

Why it wouldn't work (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128029)

The first problem: What's porn? The second problem: Who decides what's porn? The third problem: Who enforces it?

Re:Why it wouldn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128090)

I prefer this order: 1) Who decides what's porn? 2) Who enforces that definition? 3) What is their definition?

I like it best when I can decide for myself: much like when I decide about my education, health, where I will live, ect.

Freedom: it is worth the risk

Funny article (1)

chipster (661352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128030)

Mentions relationships between...
  • Ralph Yarro
  • SCO
  • pr0n

What about other content? (4, Funny)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128036)

There are only 61538 ports. That's barely enough to categorise my personal fetishes, let alone everyone else's. Where on earth are we going to leave all the other content?

Re:What about other content? (1)

Stephen Williams (23750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128126)

Does IPv6 add more ports? If so, this might finally be the reason to migrate...


SCO Group, I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128037)

For the past 10 years, Yarro has been building and developing technology companies such as Altiris Inc. and SCO Group Inc. Ahhh so SCO is behind this, that explains how someone was dumb enough to come up with an idea like this.

Gives whole new meanings to the phrases... (5, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128038)

.."port knocking" and "port sniffing".

Great US exports (3, Interesting)

melonman (608440) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128046)

International adult sites not subject to US laws

True, but just getting US-generated and US-hosted porn under control, as well as porn passing through US-owned ISPs, would account for quite a lot of sites, and an awful lot of the sites that tend to pop up in Google. America is regularly cited as one of the obstacles to dealing with Internet porn - if it took any steps, however technically incompetent, to address the issue, it would make an enormous difference.

I realise that restricting access to porn may not be a subject dear to the heart of all /.ers, but I have the impression that most of the rest of this thread is going to boil down to "no-one can do a thing about porn, la la la la I can't hear you", when the reality is that a lot of people around the world would like to see the present situation changed, and, one way or another, sooner or later, that will result in legislation. And if a solution is finally imposed, it may well turn out to be as draconian as the French government's anti-nazi legislation, which has been successfully imposed on Yahoo.

Logic? (3, Interesting)

Shoten (260439) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128051)

I particularly love the notion that they have that, by sequestering porn off to its own ports, they'll manage to avoid the risk of infringement of First Amendment rights that has come with things like the CDA. But I guess they really aren't thinking about WHO will decide what is and isn't porn, are they? :)

Re:Logic? (1)

vonoech (605198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128191)

As presented here on Slash this seems like a crazy idea but the technology exists today for a solution like this to be developed and easily deployed. Using an off the shelf content cache engine (from F5, Cisco, Nortel, etc,...) available from many companies you could apply filters (which already exist in WebSense or Symantec products) to redirect content from specific sites to an alternate port. You would need to configure your web browser to seek the content on that alternate port.

UK Woman is trying to 'block' violent Porn sites (5, Informative)

joely (261109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128058)

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

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

If anyone else in the UK feels the same as me then please use the [] Write-to-them website to get a message to your MP!

Re:UK Woman is trying to 'block' violent Porn site (2, Informative)

Ngwenya (147097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128165)

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

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

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


The dirty bit (2, Interesting)

Azeron (797264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128061)

We don't need to restrict porn to a certain port, why not have a "dirty bit" in the tcp/ip wrapper instead? php_enable_porn()

Just block port 80! (1, Funny)

Sindri (207695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128068)

Thats where most of the porn is currently cumming in.

Why not als invent a few exclusive new protocols? (1, Funny)

flowerp (512865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128099)

P2P - Porn 2 Peers
HTTP - Hypertexttransport for porn.
FTP - Filetransfer for porn.

Basically he wants to legislate his... (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128104) model into existence and I suppose he owns the patent or is currently in the process of getting a patent on radically and fundamentally altering the structure of the Internet.

    What an ignorant "technology guy". Seriously.

    All he could do is create a friggin' nation wide ISP that has strong Porn filters and then he can sell that service to Religious Fundies across America. Then, they can "feel safe" with their "protected" Broadband or dial-up handicapped Internet.

    It is absolutely ludicrous that the entire infrastructure of the Internet and network technology be reworked to support his hairbrained scheme of obtainig "teh big pile" of money.

Porn...what porn? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14128109)

Just 3 bright comments:

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

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

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


Dont stop with porn (1)

maxzilla (786061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128113)

when they finish restricting porn from port 80 maybe they can also restrict all of those potty-mouth websites who use naughty language, and after that they can supress all speach to easily blockable ports! we could just copy the chinese system and build a national firewall so we dont have to listen to the rest of the silly world.

Just extend RFC 3514! (2, Funny)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128121)

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

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

The xxx tld (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128128)

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

Utah (1, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128143)

Can Utah please do us all a favor & secede from the Union. Thank you.


Limited Range (1, Funny)

johnnyblade111 (787375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128163)

Sounds like a great idea.. porn should be limited to ports 1 to 50000. Hey, good work congress.. now we already have full compliance...

Change is in the wind (4, Insightful)

selil (774924) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128164)

What a boon if done. Think about it! Law enforcement would only have to monitor one port for specific traffic. If you were caught off port then you are already breaking the laws. Not only would companies be able to filter, but ISP's would be able to charge extra for Porn Ports. YOu want this access to this content and wham! it's an extra $19.95. Don't believe it? What about comcastic locking down port 25? NNTP dying on the vine just add Porn Ports? Are we going to need specific Porn Browsers? AOL will be able to charge extra for adult access. This has all the novelty of another idealogues attempt to protect the wayward from themselves.

smashing idea! (1)

kyofunikushimi (769712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128186)

And why not legally restrict advertising and viruses to particular ports too? Gosh, this is going to solve all the internet's problems!

Use TLDs (2, Insightful)

connah0047 (850585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128197)

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

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

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

skewed values... (1)

Tominva1045 (587712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128208)

So let me get this straight, if we want to see somebody get decapitated on a movie-trailer web site that's okay. But if two people make love, well, we gotta put a stop to that.

The Utah man states that such a law would give people a choice..

aparently a choice other than RAISING YOUR OWN KIDS.

solution! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14128213)

For something just as infeasible, why don't we just make it illegal for anyone under the age of majority to use the Internet? He may speak for a majority and if the US wasn't a republic (with that aweful notion of rights whether or not you're a minority) then good for him. But as the world has more tastes than his little mind can hold I'll have to simplify it a bit: Censors, fuck off.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?