×

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!

SCO Chair's Anti-Porn Act Advances In Utah

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the set-the-evil-bit dept.

Censorship 421

iptables -A FORWARD writes "Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah reportedly plans to sign a resolution urging Congress to enact the Internet Community Ports Act. The ICPA proposes that online content be divided by port, rather like TVs have channels with adult and family content, so that certain internet ports will be 'clean' — so-called Community Ports — and others will be 'dirty.' Thus, they hope to remove objectionable content from port 80 and require that it be moved elsewhere (port 666 was already taken by Doom, sorry), so that people could more easily block objectionable content, or have their ISPs do the blocking for them. This concept is being pushed by the CP80 group, which is chaired by Ralph Yarro, who also chairs the SCO Group. That probably explains why they didn't choose to adopt RFC 3514, instead."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

421 comments

I believe I speak for all of us here ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360551)

.. when I say, You have got to be FREAKING KIDDING ME.

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (4, Funny)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360573)

No, Only SCO would think that the state government of Utah controls the world.

Anybody else would laugh - how the hell do they think that they can make this work, when most of the people in that industry AREN'T IN UTAH!

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360773)

Only SCO would think that the state government of Utah controls the world.

      Well Utah USED TO control the world, until IBM stole it!

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (5, Funny)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360883)

Well Utah USED TO control the world, until IBM stole it!
I'd prove it, but IBM destroyed the evidence, too.

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (2, Funny)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360811)

I know, my mind is still boggling over the sheer idiocy of RFC 3514. I mean, honestly, do you REALLY believe hackers are going to mark their packets as malicious?

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (1, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360845)

Um, I believe RFC3514 is probably a joke.

I had to laugh when I read the part about all packets coming from NATs to be marked evil, and then further when it recommends that all firewalls simply drop evil packets. This action would bring a halt to much of the home use of the internet, I imagine.

Reading over the RFC made me laugh.

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (3, Informative)

BurntNickel (841511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360889)

Um, I believe RFC3514 is probably a joke.

Yeah, just check the date on the RFC: 1 April 2003

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (4, Informative)

Drantin (569921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360879)

It was an April Fool's joke a few years back... look at the date on it...

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (4, Informative)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360897)

I honestly hope you don't think that is a real RFC. I really really hope that this is just a misunderstood attempt at sarcasm. Just in case it's not. Please check the date on that RFC, and then search through all RFCs for that same date...you might get the joke. Or you may just be very angry about the CHIMP protocol...

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360905)

Uhm, I hope you are joking, but if not take a look at the date for the RFC.

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (2, Funny)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360919)

If they don't, then they are out of compliance with the spec. Besides, one of these days someone is going to use it as a legal defense. "Your Honor, the prosecution alleges that my client's DoS attack was intended to bring their systems down, but as you can see in this packet trace, he had the evil bit set. As RFC 3514 requires that firewalls drop all packets with the evil bit set, my client could not have possibly meant for these packets to actually get through."

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360975)

Umm...what? Where the hell do "hackers" and "malicious packets" come into this?

We're talking about content. And, to be honest, a voluntary system for identifying "adult material" would probably be adhered to. Because it's in the porn industry's best interest.

The porn sites are in business to make money. Period. And they're well aware of negative image that they give the rest of the industry, and that there's a lot of heat on them. Frankly, it helps them a lot to be able to say "look, we provide technical means to allow parents to filter this out for their children." Now they can do business in peace, without the hue and cry of "Think of the Children! We must protect them from teh interwebs!"

Is it possible to circumvent this system? Absolutely. Will some people fail to adhere to it? Without doubt. But most of the "legit" porn industry would probably be relieved to have a system that lets them say they're acting in good faith as responsible citizens.

The problem here is the implementation, not the concept. Segregating content by internet port is just silly. And the underlying concept is somewhat disturbing--I think the notion here is like broadcast and basic TV, and FCC decency standards could be enforced on port 80. Frankly, that has a LOT of negative implications that have nothing to do with porn.

Simpler to implement solutions that would achieve the same effect: Add a new TLD for porn (though IMO the proliferation of TLD's in also flawed, but that's a different rant), adding a specific meta-tag (just as we do today for robots), adding a new attribute to the tag to classify certain images as adult-only, etc. I'm sure there are better ideas than mine out there.

At some point, people who are ACTUALLY concerned about children are going to stop trying to figure out how to somehow outlaw porn and work with the industry to put voluntary controls in place.

Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18361097)

You do know the Evil Bit was an April Fools joke, right?

shouldn't that read... (0, Redundant)

bsomerville (1063638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360561)

anti-ports act? not anti-porn?

Re:shouldn't that read... (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360741)

No, it's both. They want porn to have it's own port, so they can block porn's port. Doesn't matter, because hackers will achieve extreme penetration of the porn port, blocked or not.

It's stupid, and it shows a huge lack of understanding about what ports are for, and how content is directed to specific ports, and it depends wholly on the ability to separate content by its content, which is extraordinarily difficult to do with image/video data. Might as well just block port 80.

Port 69 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360571)

666 is Doom, but how about 69?

Re:Port 69 (4, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360641)

Unfortunately port 69 is already assigned. From my /etc/services:

tftp 69/tcp
tftp 69/udp

In any case, the concept is fundamentally flawed. Ports are designed to discriminate by protocol, not by service content. This is just another flawed implementation of RFC3514 [ietf.org] .

More information... (4, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360847)

More information on this subject, including a detailed discussion of why content segregation is dangerous, can be found in RFC3675 [ietf.org] . It suggests an actual workable solution: PICS tags.

PICS Labels (Platform for Internet Content Selection) is a generalized system for providing "ratings" for Internet accessible material. The PICS documents [w3.org] should be consulted for details. In general, PICS assumes an arbitrarily large number of rating services and rating systems. Each service and system is identified by a URL.

It would be quite reasonable to have multiple PICS services that, in the aggregate, provided 300 bits of label information or more. There could be a PICS service for every community of interest. This sort of technology is really the only reasonable way to make categorizations or labelings of material available in a diverse and dynamic world.

While such PICS label services could be used to distribute government promulgated censorship categories, for example, it is not clear how this is any worse than government censorship via national firewalls.

A PICS rating system is essentially a definition of one or more dimensions and the numeric range of the values that can be assigned in each dimension to a rated object. A service is a source of labels where a label includes actual ratings. Ratings are either specific or generic. A specific rating applies only to the material at a particular URL [RFC 2396 [ietf.org] ] and does not cover anything referenced from it, even included image files. A generic rating applies to the specified URL and to all URLs for which the stated URL is a prefix.

This seems like very much the "right" way of doing it. It:

  1. Doesn't break any existing systems,
  2. Is plenty flexible enough to be used for flagging pr0n as such, but also could be used by services like del.icio.us to suggest similar content to the current page,
  3. And gracefully degrades to support systems that are unaware of it.

Also, unlike their proposed port breakage, it can easily be turned off if you don't care about it.

Re:Port 69 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360661)

666 is Doom, but how about 69?

That's reserved for all content distributed by Howard Stern.

Re:Port 69 (1)

Wateshay (122749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360711)

666 is Doom, but how about 69?

Port 69 is reserved for TFTP, although maybe we could just backronym that to something like "Tends For Teh Pr0n".

Re:Port 69 (4, Funny)

antonyb (913324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361073)

No, no, no. It stands for "Tube For The Porn". Its all about the Tubes, these days.


While we're at it, TCP stands for "Tube Carrying Porn", and IP is "Internet Porn", which goes to prove that the internet is founded on porn.


ant.

Enforceable? (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360579)

This is about as enforceable as the .xxx TLD. No matter what you do, you're not going to be able segregate the pr0n from other content. Unless you're SCO, I guess, then maybe you could sue those who don't comply by claiming that your intellectual property is on port 80, therefore you own all of the content on port 80 -- millions of lines of HTML!

Re:Enforceable? (3, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360607)

No matter what you do, you're not going to be able segregate the pr0n from other content.

Pah! All you have to do is see if the 'porn' bit is set in the headers.

Re:Enforceable? (3, Interesting)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360671)

Then what if some sneaky ISP (*cough*ATT*cough*Verzion*cough*) just "accidentaly" starts putting pr0n bits in the headers of any pro-Republican(or pro-Democrat, pro-free thought, etc.) site?

Re:Enforceable? (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360731)

Then what if some sneaky ISP (*cough*ATT*cough*Verzion*cough*) just "accidentaly" starts putting pr0n bits in the headers of any pro-Republican(or pro-Democrat, pro-free thought, etc.) site?

Agreed.

If only the writers of the tcp/ip rfc had had as much forsight as you when they were including the porn bit in the headers.

Damn, only leaves 192 other countries! (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360697)

And what's to stop porn site from simply relocating to another country and ignoring this law completely?

dotXXX (3, Insightful)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360597)

What makes this approach that much different from using the .XXX top-level? That's just as easily blocked, and easily passable (ssh or proxy)

Re:dotXXX (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360769)

The XXX tld isn't a wholly bad idea, because it relys on the voluntary cooperation of porn sites, something that is far more likely to be obtained than the ability to route types of content on the same protocol to different ports based on content.

Re:dotXXX (1)

alcourt (198386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361135)

The .XXX domain is an awful idea. If people want kid friendly content, then make a .kids or similar domain. There, membership can't be pushed on organizations that might be slightly on the shady side depending on which administration is in power, but sites that demonstrate a clear "kid friendly" content can opt in and it is easier to handle and with less potential for censorship of material available to adults.

Re:dotXXX (4, Insightful)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360853)

If they must have something (not that I agree), a .kids would make more sense. Then parents can configure their home proxy to only allow traffic to *that* domain. But, based on crap I see like religious shows on tv having a 'G' rating (WHAT? If anything requires parental guidance...), this would not work either. Maybe require a license to have and keep a .kids TLD or something.

Re:dotXXX (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360937)

But, based on crap I see like religious shows on tv having a 'G' rating (WHAT? If anything requires parental guidance
What about shows with political content? PG for them, too? Need to protect the children from dangerous opinions!

Re:dotXXX (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360945)

Any time you have content on the net, you'll get filth in their too.

Your suggestion is one of the first times I've seen something that might actually count as a possible solution. You'll get a _bit_ of abuse, but as long as the domain registry is reasonably pro-active about it, then ... well, all well and good. I mean, it's not like most porn-mongers actually want kids looking at their stuff. For starters, they don't have credit cards...

The only real problem being that then you're in danger of a 'limited portal' that's got no real content on it at all, because to allow the 'good' stuff on the net would require a lot more overhead.

Gah, get your definition straight! (4, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360603)

"There is this assumption that you can't control it (the Internet)," Yarro said. "It's a toaster, we made it, we can fix it. ... We can solve the Internet pornography problem tomorrow if we decided to."

Stupid legislators. It's not a fricking toaster, that's rediculous.

It's a series of tubes.

I thought we got that straight a few months ago!

So relieved to find out the internet is a toaster (3, Funny)

heroofhyr (777687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360649)

Now all we need is to figure out a way to get Yarro to open Firefox in the bathtub.

Re:Gah, get your definition straight! (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360691)

What makes me think the next piece of legislation this idiot will write will mandate that pi be defined as exactly 3, since 3.14159... is too difficult?

Re:Gah, get your definition straight! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360745)

this idiot will write will mandate that pi be defined as exactly 3, since 3.14159... is too difficult?

All that means is that his circles will be smaller? :-P

Re:Gah, get your definition straight! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360719)

The only question is: "Is Yarro a liar or just a fool?"

My guess is both.

-Eric

Re:Gah, get your definition straight! (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360909)

The only question is: "Is Yarro a liar or just a fool?"

My guess is both.

-Eric

Um, he is a politician. This was already known. The constituents he is pandering to will pat him on the back after this fails for having tried to "fight the good fight."

Re:Gah, get your definition straight! (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360809)

It's a series of tubes.

More importantly, it's a toaster that comprises a series of tubes... an international series of tubes.

Even if it passes, and doesn't get smacked down by the Supreme Court, it is unenforcable anywhere but in the US. I suppose these congressbastards think they OWN the whole Interweb?!?

Sounds like a good idea to me (0, Flamebait)

anomaly (15035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360613)

In meatspace, we already have constraints on distribution channels for so-called "adult" material. I can send my kid to Toys R Us and know that he won't find porn. (I think that there are lots of problems with the junk sold there, but porn is not one of them.)

Why not also provide a mechanism for segregating content? The link to the RFC was simply silly. People who own this "adult" content want to make money from it, and they can be held accountable, unlike the idiots who pseudo-anonymously hack systems.

It's not censorship, it's segregation. This is normative in meatspace, why should it be different in cyberspace?

As a parent, I like the idea that I could install a port blocker at home and block the majority of porn content. I already have a content filter in place that blocks access to pages based on content (porn, violence, etc) and if something like this can make filtering content easier, without significantly restricting access to those people who want that content, what's the big deal?

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360667)

The big deal is you haven't fully thought out the implications of this. Google about the .xxx domain to see the danger this can cause.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (2, Interesting)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360701)

Mostly because, as a parent or not, you don't understand how the internet works.
As MANY have pointed out, this gives no more protection than the .xxx domain name, and is only about a billion times harder to implement.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18361045)

The .xxx domain is a great idea as far as I'm concerned, and you're telling me that it's "a billion times harder" to get a webserver to run on a port other than 80? Give me a break. Let me introduce you to httpd.conf.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (2, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360757)

The big deal is that it will be a government mandate. Toys 'r' Us is a toy store. It's self-governed business knows that porn doesn't belong there so it's not there. I bet you also won't find bongs, industrial chemicals, fresh fruit, bags of concrete, and document safes in there, either.

In you installing a filter on your home network, you're taking some pro-active steps. That's good. Companies that make filters are always improving them so your job becomes less difficult. That's good, too. And neither of those things required laws to be written.

Maybe the real lesson is that people who make content filtering software should lobby the legislature like other companies do.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360759)

As a parent, I like the idea that I could install a port blocker at home and block the majority of porn content.
Sure, it's a nice idea to think about, but it's also completely and totally impossible to implement or enforce. Suggesting we put all the adult content on this big unregulated international mishmash of an Internet on a specific port is pretty much like saying "we could stop all hunger in the world just by not letting anyone run out of food anymore, and we could stop all war by making sure nobody has a gun who is a war person." It just doesn't work that way.

Sure, you could send your kid into Toys backwards-"R" Us alone without him finding porn (although if your kid is very young you should be going into the damn store with him,) but can you say the same of the Library of Congress? They have naughty books there. The Internet is much more an all-encompassing library than it is a kiddie-friendly toy shop, and it is nobody's responsibility but yours to monitor what your kid does with it.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

barik (160226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360781)

The problem is that something like "Toys R' Us" is localized. You can establish decency laws for that county, district, or state. But how do you enforce decency laws in an environment that is heterogenous (ie: global). The same standards for "adult" content in India are not the same as the "adult" content standards in the US.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

NayDizz (821461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360785)

The issue, however, is the potential for abuse. My immediate reaction was also that this could be an awfully efficient way to filter content, but it reeks too much like the first step to being able to ban porn in geographic locations (being based in Utah), or the "morally superior" ISP's could use this to prevent access to their entire subscriber base.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (4, Insightful)

saider (177166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360795)

This is not a technology problem. It is a problem of figuring out who gets to set the porn bit. Since the internet is international no one jurisdiction can assert authority. For your meatspace analogy, it would be like you lighting up a joint, and then telling the LA police to piss off because it is legal in Amsterdam.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360857)

What is "porn" to you and to government is actually poetry to other people. Including many parents.


You have no right to force my content or product into some seedy store, anymore than I can demand my smut be sold at Toys R Us.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360891)

Your analogy is broken.

This is equivalent to declaring that trucks carrying porn cannot drive on certain roads. It's an attack on infrastructure to solve a political problem.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (2, Insightful)

petabyte (238821) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360931)

Well, firstly, I would have to say I'm not a parent so I've not yet run into the problems you describe. But from my standpoint, I don't believe this will make filtering access any easier and it puts a significant workload on everyone else.

How do you characterize what is adult material and what isn't? Is that porn or is it art? I personally feel there is a difference - I know porn when I see it and I know art when I see it, but my standards aren't the same as everyone else. Lets assume there aren't going to be the inevitable court battles over "is it or isn't it" and I have complete dictatorial control over "is it or isn't it". Are you as a parent comfortable with me making those decisions for you? I view proposals like this as ways power is being taken out of you (the parents) hands and put in the hands of a less capable bureaucrat.

At the end of the day, it will still have to be up to you to make the decisions on what is or isn't appropriate for your children. And while I do feel that filtering software is a good tool (I use privoxy/squid to filter out malware on my own network), you will still have to sit and teach good browsing habits.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360983)

In meatspace, we already have constraints on distribution channels for so-called "adult" material. I can send my kid to Toys R Us and know that he won't find porn. (I think that there are lots of problems with the junk sold there, but porn is not one of them.)

You won't find much porn at www.toysrus.com either. AFAIK they don't sell "adult toys" at all.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360993)

Well, there is the obvious problem of what constitutes 'adult' material. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned about porn as I would about graphic violence, advertising, and religious zealotry. That moves the majority of the internet into the adult section, and when you allow a few other people to name what they think of as offensive, the whole thing just gets moved, and it isn't a fix at all. Let's say we split it up more, with a whole range of ports, one for sexually explicit, one for graphically violent, one for politically contentions, one for religious proseletyzing, etc. Now where does the heartfelt story of a how a a young girl was beaten by her adoptive parents, raped by a group of thugs, then taken in by the church fall? What about a sexual reply to an otherwise clean blog? Who decides? How do they enforce it, and how much time is spent just pigeonholing internet content for easy filtration? I know, we can use automated software, and filter automatically. The offensive words and images will arrive in separate packets, on separate ports, from the rest of the content. That should be easy and simple to implement.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

clark0r (925569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361017)

because in real life, you avoid porn by NOT looking for it.

on the internet, and lets be honest here, you don't find a lot of porn by accident.

if your child is visiting the kind of sites that links to porn, or has porn banners, you are a BAD FUCKING PARENT for not bringing your kids up right, or not monitoring your kids properly. it's always the same argument, parents are responsible for their kids, not the fucking government/isp/god etc.

Not looking for it? (1)

anomaly (15035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361103)

you don't find a lot of porn by accident
Explain to me why the acronym NSFW was created.

You never get unsolicited emails that have porn photos?

I'd love to have a child-safe internet channel where content was intentionally restricted.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361115)

on the internet, and lets be honest here, you don't find a lot of porn by accident.

My nine year old daughter doesn't do many google searches, and she's found porn by accident.

I don't advocate this solution, though. How would you handle something like Wikipedia, on which my son looked up Simon Bolivar on last night, but where fairly explicit images are also available? Instead, something like ICRA, and good browser support for it, is probably the best solution. Those who want to help parents and others control content should advocate this and provide resources to improve browswers, not try to pass unenforceable laws.

The only reaction necessary (2, Insightful)

BVis (267028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360627)

I think we can all agree that the only reaction this requires is a hearty "STFU".

Leaving alone the obvious impracticality of implementation and enforcement (ask Australia about that), this moron thinks that he can legislate morality.

My morality doesn't agree with his. I resent having moral decisions made for me, and I bet the majority of Americans feel the same way. If I want to look at porn, I should be able to look at porn. If someone else doesn't want to look at porn, they don't have to. What exactly is the problem here that requires legislative intervention?

Re:The only reaction necessary (2, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360689)

could you name a law that doesn't legislate morality?

Re:The only reaction necessary (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360815)

Most laws actually don't legislate morality, it's just that stuff that's good for the state (no drunk drivers, no drug use, no prostitution) often has a moral component.

Re:The only reaction necessary (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360915)

the very idea that laws should be enacted for the good of the state is one of morality. the entire point of laws is making moral decisions for a group. it is valid to argue that this law does not reflect the morality of the majority but it is senseless to argue that you can't legislate morality.

Re:The only reaction necessary (2, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360881)

Most of them. Most laws legislate behavior; morality only falls into law where there is no set definition of a concept or the definition is vague and subject to interpretation by a person's moral/ethical self. To take the most heated example, the law states that currently it is legal for a doctor to perform an abortion; the morality of the issue is a matter for the individual. If you believe it morally wrong, you do not have to participate, i.e. have an abortion. I personally think that abortion is morally reprehensible but I also realize that mine is just an opinion, and that I have no right to impose it on others who do not share my belief.

So in the end, as many have said, while this sounds like a good idea, it's not. Content is what content is -- just as kids have been discovering dirty magazines under their parents' beds, they will discover dirty pictures on-line, and it is up to parents to handle that problem, not the legal system.

Re:The only reaction necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360743)

I think we can all agree that the only reaction this requires is a hearty "STFU".

I believe that should read:

I think we can all agree that the only reaction this requires is a hearty "ST[http://slashdot.org:666/letter_F]U".

Re:The only reaction necessary (1, Insightful)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360771)

this moron thinks that he can legislate morality"

Who's the moron?

First, I don't see how this is legislating morality. This proposal does not in any way block pornogrophy. It just organizes it better; that way it can be more easily blocked by parents or employers. If you are your own administrator at your house, then I assume you won't have the ports in question blocked.

Second, believe it or not you will not find a single legislator in any country at any time that does not believe their purpose is to legislate morality. I believe that one of their main purposes is to legislate morality. An believe it or not--you'd be lying if you say you don't either. Allow me to explain: why is murder illegal? Because it's immoral. Why is it illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 6 year old? Because it's immoral. The reasons why it is immoral may vary--for example, murder is immoral because it is generally wrong to take another's life. And statutory rape is illegal because a 6 year old can't realistically consent. And there are people that disagree with the reasons why these things are illegal--but they will never be legislators because they are so far from the norm that they could not possibly be elected to public office.

In conclusion, you are a moron for trying to make use of the "don't legislate morality" line that is so overused (and I don't even understand why it is still around).

Re:The only reaction necessary (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361035)

It just organizes it better

      No - it doesn't organize squat. It's like an environmental law to cut down on CO2 by mandating that people breathe more slowly. The compliance to this law will be exactly ZERO. If they start trying to enforce it in the US, porn sites will simply move out of the US. So what purpose does an unenforceable law serve? It makes the proponet(s) feel good about themselves. Period. Problem is this is happening on the public bankroll, with public funds.

      Your second paragraph is too convoluted for a rational dissection - it would get messy fast. However you do manage to contradict yourself while at the same time, believe it or not, you are quite redundant.

      In conclusion, you are also a moron for calling someone a moron on slashdot. Oh don't worry, I'm a moron too.

Re:The only reaction necessary (1)

jeppster (1031326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360825)

If I want to look at porn, I should be able to look at porn.
You would be able to. I thought it was very clear that they aren't blocking porn, just segregating it. You'll still be able to satisfy yourself regularly, and parents will be able to more effectively block content from their kids. What exactly is wrong with this legislative intervention?

Re:The only reaction necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360955)

It's amazing how there is an underlying assumption that slashdotters are semi-intelligent but there are so many who make comments like this who obviously haven't even completely read and comprehended the topic summary. Most folks don't read the featured article but AT LEAST READ THE SUMMARY!!!

Re:The only reaction necessary (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361111)

That is still crazy, you don't segregate porn, you segregate children. The open general network still has everything but the children specific network is just for schools and children (and further broken down into specific age groups).

Of course greedy ass hat corporations don't really like that idea because inherently there will be a full range of restrictions on what is and is not suitable to be advertised to children, which is why a SCO weasel appears in the mix ie. absolutely no junk food advertising on the children's Internet, only approved non-harm full products with truth in advertising and full disclosure for all other advertised products.

Greedy ass wipe corporations would rather see the whole of the Internet and every adult on the planet censored, before they would give up the opportunity to target marketing at easily impressionable children and via them their parents wallets. Ain't it sick how many corporations hunger after your children's pocket money.

Re:The only reaction necessary (2, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361061)

OF course you rmorality doesn't agree.... your not a pervert.

These Utahians are, on the other hand, quite obviously perverts.

Look at it this way... theres lots of ways to divide up the world. You can say "there are black people and white people"... then you broke up the world on skin color. You can say "there are good days and bad" then you have broken up days based on how you feel about them.

These people in Utah want to sort the entire content of the internet, based on sex. I say, putting such an incredibly high importance on sexual content vs everything else tells me one thing... they are perverts. Perverts who feel that sex is so highly dangerous and dirty that it needs to be supressed. Probably because feeling nasty and dirty is the only way they can get off.

Fucking perverts.

-Steve

Jeebus said so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18361123)


What exactly is the problem here that requires legislative intervention?


Jeebus doesn't like boobies. True story. Guns are good wholesome fun though, especially when pointed at infidels. Jeebus doesn't like them either.

Sure, congressman, we'll do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360653)

Should be easy dividing up the internet into "good" and "bad" pages. All we've got to do is make 2 piles and throw each one of the billions of pages onto one of those 2 piles, then start offering "bad" http and "bad" https on 2 other ports, then configure every server in the world to comply with this and offer their content accordingly, then just release a standard for this new system so that it can be implemented in all of the popular browsers for every single operating system.

Nope, that won't be a problem at all.

Concepts (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360677)

He is thinking that ports are like TV channels but what we do need is an .xxx domain and domains ENFORCED properely which is why the internet is in the mess it is. Domain usage is not used correctly as it was intended.

Oh Just great... (0, Redundant)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360687)

So instead of doing something at least partially sensible, like setting up a .xxx TLD for porn sites, We are gonna start breaking web browsing now?

Come ON people! I'm as much for protecting kids from online boobies as the next parent, but messing with the basic structural foundation of the Web? Give me a break!

Methinks we have some legislators that need:

a) A basic IT education (A+ and Net+ would be a good start)
b) a permanent vacation if they don't stop trying to push nonsense laws.

please leave it alone (5, Interesting)

BGraves (790688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360693)

To all legislators:
        Please leave the internet alone. It works well. People smarter than you created it. It has revolutionized our world. Parents need to take care of their kids, not you. The more changes you make, the more likely you are to break something. Here's a deal. You don't need to get in the news to get my vote. Stay out of the news for a year, and I'll vote for you.

The REAL goal (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360699)

or have their ISPs do the blocking for them.

      ISP: So, you want to see porn on the internet? You dirty bastard, that's an extra $50 a month and we'll unblock that port for you.

      Of course this would never work since it requires the cooperation of the whole world. As far as I know most online porn sites aren't based in Utah. When will they learn...?

Re:The REAL goal (1, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360805)

Of course this would never work since it requires the cooperation of the whole world. As far as I know most online porn sites aren't based in Utah


Of course it won't work. But that's not the point. SCO is trying to generate good press for itself, and so are the legislators. It's all about PR for the non-IT educated masses. The fact that it will and could never work is irrelevant.

Like many laws oriented towards social issues, this is about symbolism. Substance be damned.

Re:The REAL goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360829)

"As far as I know most online porn sites aren't based in Utah."

Huh? I was under the impression that all the nice three-some and gang-bang sites were located there, since the ormons can do this stuff legally....?

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the tip - and don't forget to fish. *ba-dum-bish*

Re:The REAL goal (2, Informative)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360867)

This is a proposed federal law being pushed by the governor of Utah. So, although you are correct that the whole world would need to cooperate, and you are correct that Huntsman is generally in charge only of his own state, and you are correct that this whole thing probably wouldn't work, you did get one thing wrong--he's pushing a federal law, which would apply to the entire US, so the content providers would not have to be in Utah for this proposed law to reach them (but they would have to be in the US).

Protocol != Content (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360703)

Another genius idea from people who know absolutely nothing about how computers or the internet functions. Ports are for protocols, not content. The "content" is just a paticular arrangement of data sent over that protcol.

What these guys really want is to mandate that all IPv6 packets have a TOTC(Think of the children) bit. Defaulted to 1, for "unsafe content". They then pass legislation banning ISPs from handling anything with a TOTC bit of 1. The only way to get a TOTC bit of zero, without breaking the law, is to apply for an extremely expensive licence and audit, available to only the largest corporations.

Entirely coincidentally, the Chinese government's UFTP(Unsafe for the People) bit will occupy exactly the same position in their altered version of the IPv6 protocol, ensuring that the new, saer net will be fully interoperable.

Farfetched? Well, which is more likely? This or competant government that's for the people?

Re:Protocol != Content (2, Interesting)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360851)

Actually it is a rather smart idea, technology wise. Companies that deal with porn could place it on another port, say 84, and then redirect from a clean page. It is easy to implement with all current web servers and since the port is already a standard part of URL so search engines would beable to find it, along will all current software would not have a problem changing over to it. Since it does not have a domain no need to worry about all of that mess of that. In additional almost all home firewall have the abaility to already block specified port so it is a quick way that it could be put in use by the people who want to block it.
As for the protocol use of the port that is already not the case, various vendors already use different ports on thier web servers to handle help or admin pages.
There is one major problem, it assumes that the people who run theses sites want to prevent minors from gaining access. So we are back to the .xxx problem and this bill and the idea is dead.

Im in favor (-1, Flamebait)

mibalzonya (1072126) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360707)

of putting all Religious/Creationism on the adult intratube. I urge you to think of the children.

I object to phishing sites and spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360751)

...so what ports are they going to be on?

SCO hates the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360755)

The irony of this coming from a company that charges you extra money to be able to access the internet at all if you use their operating system.

They probably think www = vi vi vi = 666 = the beast and their duty to God is to attempt to subvert and destroy it!

Problem one: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360797)

I'm sick and tired of fundamentalists trying to run governments and peoples lives. You have no place in law making, period.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360821)

Wait a minute... supposing we leave 22 for non-porn ssh, 25 for non-porn smtp, and 80 for non-porn http.... that only leaves 65533 ports for porn. Is that enough? I don't think it's enough.

Re:hmm (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361009)

Wait a minute... supposing we leave 22 for non-porn ssh, 25 for non-porn smtp, and 80 for non-porn http.... that only leaves 65533 ports for porn. Is that enough? I don't think it's enough.

But wait! What other protocols have you forgotten about which you use on a daily basis?

  • DNS
  • NTP
  • HTTPS
  • IMAP
  • FTP
  • Telnet
  • Kerberos
  • POP
  • SFTP
  • IRC
  • VNC
  • LDAP
  • RTSP
  • Rsync

The list goes on and on. In fact, my /etc/services contains 4596 ports registered for TCP protocols.

Clearly the legislation should be amended to declare the MSB of the port number to be the "evil bit" similar to that specified in RFC3514 [ietf.org] .

Better, they could use a less broken solution such as a URL tagging system like PICS.

Congress shall make no law... (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360873)

...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.

That's an Amendment to the Constitution, better known as the First Amendment. The Constitution, folks, was written to restrict government's reach -- it was not written to protect our rights or to restict people.

Our Federal government has absolutely zero power to regulate the Internet. The Interstate Commerce Act has been stretched to give Congress power, but the Act was not intended to actually allow the government to regulate commerce but to prevent the Individual States from perverting commerce between them. Read the Federalist papers to see more on that debate.

We already have anti-porn powers in place -- it's called the Power of Parenting. No government official can legislate control over how a parent decides to introduce their children to various topics. I fear that heavy-handed moralists may decide that sites with breast-feeding or basic sex information might get censored along with bestiality sites. For me, neither matter since I don't have kids, but should I decide to, I want to regulate what my children can look at. I also want to regulate at what age they are free to start deciding for themselves what they want to look at.

I grew up in the early BBS days (1983 or so). My parents didn't regulate me at all. My BBS that I ran, starting in my pre-teens, ended up having a small porn download/sharing section. It was probably viewed by some youths, but the vast majority of visitors there were adults (we did telephone authorization to give people access). I don't recall spending more than a few minutes in that section myself, since I preferred the online forums and the chat area (we were multinode early). My parents both visited the BBS on a few occasions, and they never scolded me for any section. They did warn me to be careful not to break any laws, but in our household, their regulations were the only laws that I had to work to obey. I did obey, until I moved out, at which point I realized that a lot of what my friends' parents restricted them from were the very things they clung to when they reached a point of maturity. Forbidden fruits create many jams, I guess.

Let's keep government out of our households. Let's remember that the Constitution was written to prevent Federal government from going bonkers and destroying our ability to not just choose for ourselves, but also reap what we sow when we make mistakes (and when we work hard). Equalizing everyone's chances is what government tries to do, at the restriction of those outside the box who really can venture forth in success by working hard outside of the box. I don't like the box, and I don't want to be restricted to living there, even if you do.

Censorship? (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360887)

I'd like to know why this is flagged as censorship. Is it considered censorship that adult movies can't be rated G? Is it censorship that pornography is not allowed in the .gov TLD? Just because it has to be segregated does't mean it is censored.

Regardless of that, I don't see how this can be enforced, since only a fraction of .com domains are owned by entities in the USA.

Dan East

The Great Firewall of Utah (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360895)

In Capitalists West Utah notes you upload via dirty port everyday.
In Soviet Russia KGB dirty port always open for you.

'stumbling' across it? (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360901)

I'm sorry, but I've never in all of my years browsing websites and newsgroups simply 'stumbled' across online porn.

And as far as seeking it out, at least google and such have 'family filters' which actually seem to work pretty well, along with there being personal proxying products that you can use as well. Not that that is a perfect solution, but there *are* already solutions out there for parents/etc who feel the need to block things they don't want their children or themselves to see.

Re:'stumbling' across it? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361057)

Actually, I have. It has happened by two different mechanisms. One is typo-squatting, the other was loaded search results.

Something to remember is that many home users will type something in the URL and hit enter. That can have all kinds of fun effects.

mo3 up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18360933)

1. Therekfore it's sse. The number are allowed to play

that will work .. let me set the evil bit (1)

splatter (39844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18360967)

This is almost as funny as the joke.

Life imitates comedy which imitates life or something like that. Where is my evil bit anyway? I know I have it stored around here somewere.

dp

Why not HTML tags? (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361055)

META or whatever - maybe for directories, include some simple unique character prefix (like ac_directoryname), that would make it able to restrict specific sensitive pages/directories instead of whole servers and such.

It is something that could be implemented readily in content creation, be very open as a standard and filtered with much simpler methods then many of the other ones. I think sometimes we are putting too much though into it, maybe the MPAA with nthier broadcast flag/copy bit has us all messed up.

The icon should be updated. (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18361079)

Instead of a black line across the guy's face it should be one of those balls in the mouth with elastic straps around his head...

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18361151)

It's such a pity that it's so much easier to legislate stupidity than it is to legislate intelligence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...