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 Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the but-i-thought-the-internet-was-*for*-porn dept.

Censorship 343

cachedout writes "SCO's Ralph Yarro had the floor yesterday at the Utah Technology Commission meeting in front of Utah lawmakers. Yarro proposed that free wireless sites and subscribers should be held responsible should any porn be delivered to minors because hotspots are apparently where kids go to watch porn all day long. Yarro told lawmakers that open wireless access points should be made a crime because we have an Internet out of control."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


First post!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805361)


In soviet russia... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805365)

SCO bans you!!

Ah come on... (4, Interesting)

tibike77 (611880) | about 7 years ago | (#18805371)

Is *anybody* taking SCO seriously nowadays anymore ?
And I don't mean /. readers, I mean the "average Joe that heard of SCO once, in passing".

Re:Ah come on... (3, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | about 7 years ago | (#18805673)

Of course. The "Average Joe" just knows that a big company (with a logo and EVERYTHING) thinks that WiFi is corrupting our children. That's enough big words to sway anyone!

Re:Ah come on... (5, Funny)

TFGeditor (737839) | about 7 years ago | (#18805829)

1-900 numbers! We have a telephone system that is out of control! Won't somebody think of the children!

Oh noes! (3, Funny)

xtal (49134) | about 7 years ago | (#18805839)


Good thing there aren't any worse problems in the world to concern ourselves with.

Re:Ah come on... (4, Interesting)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 7 years ago | (#18805893)

I wonder if SCO is actually the good guys playing devils advocate with the courts. Taking cases that they know will be lost in order to set a precedent in future cases that may not be quite so blatantly dumb.

Re:Ah come on... (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | about 7 years ago | (#18805933)

Is *anybody* taking SCO seriously nowadays anymore ?
Well, he didn't have an audience of legislators. More than will listen to me.

its begun! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805373)

Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.

Oh no! a pre-emptive strike against my router incase someone accesses porn with it :)

Out of YOUR control (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18805379)

and that's the way I like it.

Thank you very much.

He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer.

"I had this instant flash of pornographic trash on my computer that just started popping up," Brown said. "I could not turn it off. As fast as I would turn something off, something would pop on."

He had to turn off his computer to stop it, he said.

It could happen to anyone, said Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City.

"I've never opened a site in my life, but what pops up is unbelievable," he said.
Jesus, install a popup blocker (or FireFox) you luddite bastard.

JUST from entering a search phrase? (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 7 years ago | (#18805463)

I don't think so.

Just about everyone here knows how those pop-ups happen. You're either at the site or you've been infected by some crap (most likely from going to one of those sites).

Re:JUST from entering a search phrase? (1)

daeg (828071) | about 7 years ago | (#18805937)

I don't get browser popups from porn websites. Ever.

Other popups, on the other hand...

Maybe this SCO fellow was quietly and publically bragging about his virility? Perhaps this is a veiled Viagra spam through the court system? Hmm.

Re:Out of YOUR control (5, Insightful)

dorath (939402) | about 7 years ago | (#18805541)

Jesus, install a popup blocker (or FireFox) you luddite bastard.
Indeed. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of a pop-up blocker probably shouldn't be involved with interweb related legislation.

Re:Out of YOUR control (5, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | about 7 years ago | (#18805699)

"I'm thinking of re-painting the garage, and I wanted to find out if latex paint would bond to stucco, so I thought I would do a 'search' for, oh, I don't know... 'latex bondage'."

lol (5, Funny)

hurfy (735314) | about 7 years ago | (#18806013)

Then why click on the link to Nastyladies.com instead of sherwinwilliams.com ? Or perhaps "I Feel Lucky" doesn't mean what he thought it did ;)

Now wtf did that have to do with wireless again? or was it about Wii? or was it about cellphones? Bah i lost track ;)

bummer, no mod points today :(
I suspect i get more than my share by NOT using them all :)

Re:Out of YOUR control (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805741)

"He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word.""

Riiiight. Next time don't click on the "I'm feeling lucky!" button so quick.

Didn't he look at the context for the search results before clicking blindly on the first link that came up? Most adults realize that there are many innocuous words that can have multiple meanings. You can't type in "head", "facial", or "blow" into a search engine without expecting *some* possibility of suprises, and google, for example, will filter results unless you override it in the preferences, and it usually does a pretty good job.

I wonder what he typed in to magically circumvent the usual filters? And why is he blaming wireless access points for his own click-happy actions?

"And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer."

Let's look at a few hypothetical options for solving this problem (and there are many more): 1) install a pop-up blocker and/or use a modern web browser, 2) make unprompted pornographic popups illegal, or 3) outlaw unsecured wireless access points.

When personal or targetted solutions are possible, why do politicians always gravitate towards the most intrusive and broadest legislative solution as the answer? I don't even see the connection between open wireless access points and the problem this guy describes.

I have to complement him on the term, though. "Pornado". That's a good one.

Re:Out of YOUR control (1)

badc0ffee (969714) | about 7 years ago | (#18805747)

He was using windows and IE. And he knows it is the children, because that is what his kids do.

Re:Out of YOUR control (1)

Stray1 (862245) | about 7 years ago | (#18805957)

I would have loved to have been there when he told this story.

  "Absolute bullcrap Senator, I call shenanigans".

I have yet to use a major search engine that pummels you with porn popups just for typing in a search term no matter how profane. That is unless hes already been to some porn sites and they've put some spyware/ tracking cookies to pop up when you search for something.

Either way, these people are using the prospect of the general publics ignorance of the internet to keep the net closed.

Re:Out of YOUR control (2, Interesting)

vimh42 (981236) | about 7 years ago | (#18806027)

I like these lines. He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer. "I've never opened a site in my life, but what pops up is unbelievable," he said. He's lying. He's either making it all up or he visited a porn site after entering that not so explicit serach term.

moving with the times. (1)

Meph_the_Balrog (796101) | about 7 years ago | (#18806037)

What this aforementioned luddite bastard (Note to parent: i liked the term, so I borrowed it =)) fails to realize is this is not a new scenario, its simply changing with the times.

I remember as a primary school student watching deals going down between kids. Lunch money being exchanged for pages ripped from playboy mags. Bottom line, if kids want it badly enough, be it porn, drugs, alcohol etc etc. they will get it, no matter how much you try to prevent it.

It seems to me that they're too busy trying to derail the train by picking off the last carriage in line. The should be going for the locomotive, by actually trying to educate people.

Plausible (1)

cyphercell (843398) | about 7 years ago | (#18805385)

It seems mildly plausible, but it would make a lot more sense if he was suing because his kid had a problem with this.

Utahrds (1, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 7 years ago | (#18805387)

Utah senator Orrin Hatch ("the dumbest man in Congress") is the most popular choice to replace the shabby liar Attorney General Gonzales.

Re:Utahrds (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#18805445)

Utah senator Orrin Hatch ("the dumbest man in Congress") is the most popular choice to replace the shabby liar Attorney General Gonzales.

"Most popular" with whom?

Re:Utahrds (2, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 7 years ago | (#18805771)

Hatch has been suggested over and again the past month or more to replace Gonzales.

He's also popular with Utahrds who keep voting him back into the Senate.

Re:Utahrds (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805503)

Utah, the moron state.

Opps, I dropped a letter from their slogan. Shame one me. Bad, bad AC. (But you were all thinking it too.)

Re:Utahrds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805651)

I like this idea; it gets him out of congress, and he's sure to be booted out of his position when the next president is sworn into office (if not earlier... people pay more attention to the idiocy of the AG than the idiocy of Congresscritters.)

Re:Utahrds (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 7 years ago | (#18805841)

I like the idea of him leaving Congress. I don't like the idea of him running the Justice Department where he'd have even more power, and be even more stupid. We'd pay more attention because he'd do more damage.

Re:Utahrds (1)

EugeneK (50783) | about 7 years ago | (#18806043)

I'm sure the following has absolutely nothing to Utahians' intelligence, but Bush's highest popularity ratings and highest vote percentage in 2004 was in Utah. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Yep.

oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805397)

and we all know exactly where this discussion is heading...

can someone Yarro knows please just write 'twit' in indelible ink on his forehead please? then perhaps we can move along.

Hyperbole much? (4, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | about 7 years ago | (#18805401)

I mean really, an Internet out of control? all day long? Do these people see hyperbole as the best way to get people to listen because I know that anyone claiming kids are watching porn all day long is either an idiot or prone to exaggeration so why should I listen to them?

Re:Hyperbole much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805567)

The point is the internet is out of *their* control. ALL career politicians I've met hate the internet. They *wish* it was like the old french minitel system at most - safe, controlled, no chance of people stumbling upon anarchist or pirate party sites...

As it is, the internet has degraded to a frighteningly easily monitored and controlled topology. folks - build community mesh networks, link 'em up - otherwise, one day, you're going to find your internet connection is 100% propaganda like Faux News.

Re:Hyperbole much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805971)

I have often thought about this type of network. I think it would need some sort of a mapping application to keep track of all the links. Also, how would you get other people to join your 'hoodnet? Is there some motivation, like content not otherwise available?

Re:Hyperbole much? (4, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | about 7 years ago | (#18805727)

Oh yeah. It's all about the hyperbole these days. Everybody knows that hyperbole is always a million times better that accuracy. All day long they know that.

Re:Hyperbole much? (5, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 7 years ago | (#18805915)

Yea, who the hell looks at porn all day long. If I look for more than about 15 minutes I suddenly lose interest and move on.

Yeah why not (1)

Abel29A (598776) | about 7 years ago | (#18805403)

I often see swarms of kids sitting in my backyard beating off to the naughtiness streaming through my unsecured WiFi.. Yup.. Its a really big problem. So what then - ban every cafe from having wireless? Every airport? It could all be used by the children, who nobody, quite clearly, is thinking about.

Really? (1)

only.samurai (1090319) | about 7 years ago | (#18805409)

Kids really goto wireless hotspots to do stuff like that? It's just hard for me to believe that kids are at the local Starbucks checking out some porn.

Re:Really? (1)

tibike77 (611880) | about 7 years ago | (#18805455)

Cleverly disguised "Idiocracy" reference...

No, they go to Starbucks to GET porn. Well, handjobs. Whatever. Huh, "I like money". Yeah.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805551)

Well the four kids who don't have a computer in their bedroom do.

Re:Really? (1)

only.samurai (1090319) | about 7 years ago | (#18805825)

i guess i didn't really think of them getting it there and taking it back....what boggles my mind is that a kid with a laptop doesn't have internet in his house and can't get internet elsewhere. but to each his own, eh?

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | about 7 years ago | (#18805807)

It's just hard for me to believe that kids are at the local Starbucks checking out some porn.

I have another reason to believe kids are not going to Starbucks for free WiFi. Starbucks doesn't have free wireless. The service is provided by T-Mobile. I used to think Starbucks had free WiFi and went to one on my travels to use it. It was at Starbucks I learned the truth. While at Starbucks, I found an open WiFi network and used it instead. (not for porn)

I think we know what's out of control (1)

6031769 (829845) | about 7 years ago | (#18805419)

... and it isn't the internet. One can only assume that there's some grand plot being hatched by the SCO board to get themselves all sectioned in order to avoid the resulting lawsuits when their shell of a company finally implodes.

Re:I think we know what's out of control (4, Informative)

El Torico (732160) | about 7 years ago | (#18805753)

I did a quick Google search and found that Ralph Yarrow is the CEO of ThinkAtomic, which is described as a "high-tech venture accelerator"; he is also involved in the CP80 Foundation, which is lobbying against Internet pornography. Coincidentally, this CP80 organization is proposing a "technological solution" as well as a "legislative solution". I suspect that the legislative solution they want is to mandate the use of ThinkAtomic's technological solution. It appears that he failed to become richer by using the judicial system, so he's moving to the more easily manipulated legislative system.

Blahaha (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about 7 years ago | (#18805421)

So open free hotspots bad, but the kid can go down to McDonald's, by internet for $2.95 an hour, and get all the porn he wants? He can go home to his FIOS line and get porn at blazing fast speeds?

Controlling the internet is easy. (4, Funny)

xerxesVII (707232) | about 7 years ago | (#18805433)

You just have to control the tubes.

Re:Controlling the internet is easy. (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | about 7 years ago | (#18805557)

Well, they already ARE controlled, aren't they?

I thought websites required credit cards or something to verify ages before they showed you naughty stuff.

I, for one, am very skeptical that there is any threat of minors seeing naked people online. Even with free and anonymous internet access, they'd have to somehow prove they're older than 18. That's not something that one can fake easily(eg: just saying they are that old isn't going to cut it) ...

Huh? That IS all that's needed for alot of sites? And there's this thing called "pea to pea" that lets you get all sorts of vile disgustingly wonderful porn?
In news that's totally unrelated to that revelation, I'm going to go do something else besides read slashdot for a while.
I'll read wikinews... Yes, that's right. Wikinews.

Interne out of Control? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805449)

No. It's called FREEDOM and sometimes that means people are able to be free and do things that others don't like.


kill 32 people with a legally purchased gun. that's the price of freedom.
insult the president. that's the price of freedom.
remove a president. that's the price of freedom.

WOW - and now they are child-porn fighters (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#18805469)

Whats sco expecting from this ? Favourable attitude from juries/judges in numerous lawsuits they file against ibm ?

"oh look, we are 'thinking of the children' so give us some of ibm's cash already" ?

am i totally out of sync (end of a long workday) or did i nail it ?

Re:WOW - and now they are child-porn fighters (1)

Adambomb (118938) | about 7 years ago | (#18805849)

am i totally out of sync (end of a long workday) or did i nail it ?
I think the saddest thing for SCO from all of this is the fact that that is actually a valid question.

New Fantasy (1)

Esc7 (996317) | about 7 years ago | (#18805471)

I'm not worried in the slightest about our children using the whole proper internet. "He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer." The fact that my mind adds in Judy Garland instantly is what worries me.

Re:New Fantasy (2, Funny)

Excen (686416) | about 7 years ago | (#18805739)

Forget Judy Garland. I read Pornado and all I could think about was c. 1993 Helen Hunt playing naked Twister. That and an Oklahoma donkey show, because I'm always thinking about flying, copulating masses of women and burros.

Interstate commerce (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 years ago | (#18805481)

It would seem to me that placing any bans on the internet by a state would be a form of regulating interstate commerce, which is reserved for the Federal government. Correct me, As I'm sure you will, If I'm wrong.


certain death (947081) | about 7 years ago | (#18805493)

This guy is just trying to become relevant again. If no one in the real world will listen to him, maybe people in Utah will listen. I doubt it, but the Mormon community is all about dashing out pr0n, so maybe it is them he is pandering to...what a douche bag!

Sue your local post office! (1)

Tatisimo (1061320) | about 7 years ago | (#18805497)

I keep watching kids snatching discarded Victoria's secret catalogs at the local post office, and nobody seems to care about that issue! They oughta have kid-proof trash cans to get rid of your unwanted pornographic spam!

PJ uses wireless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805513)

Do PJ and friends use free wireless internet while updating Growklaw in Utah?

he's obviously mistaken (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 years ago | (#18805515)

the internet is a series of tubes, and tubes can't run through thin air, that's preposterous

it's a shame to see a man so out of touch with the basics of internet plumbing when he is obviously so in touch with the norms of modern society and the workings of software patents, and with such a general overall harmonious attitude

SCO's Concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805521)

Oh come on, SCO's just defending their vast collection of IP.

Yep, a whole lotta code. And a whole lotta porn.

He should have said... (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 7 years ago | (#18805537)

Instead of:
we have an Internet out of control

He would have been better off with:
We have an internets gone wild and the hot spicy video of underage internet users to prove it!!!!!!11

Huh? (4, Funny)

davmoo (63521) | about 7 years ago | (#18805553)

Why would anyone take this nutbag seriously? The mere fact that he works for SCO shows he's got his head firmly stuck up his ass. Oh...wait...he was talking to politicians, wasn't he? One nutbag talking to a bunch of nutbags...they gather in flocks.

I don't understand human beings. (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 7 years ago | (#18805601)

Just as an example, chances are near zero that you'd ever hear this sort of complaint about children being exposed to videos of some middle eastern suicide bomber exploding in a shower of gore, even on the 6pm news.
The world has some seriously fucked up priorities.

Mmm.... (1)

TooncesTheCat (900528) | about 7 years ago | (#18805645)

So I guess if a public bathroom has some sort of virus on its very unclean urinals, I can sue whoever runs the free piss pot if I get some sort of infection or horrible STD.

You cant fucking sue everyone over something that can be turned into something malicious. If that were the case I guess we should be able to sue Google cause it can be used maliciously for alot of things with the right know how.

Jesus Christ.

Tagging beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805667)

Shouldn't this get a "thinkofthechildren" tag (tagging beta)?

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!! (1)

Supercooldude (1018122) | about 7 years ago | (#18805683)

So little Billy sees a pair of boobies. So what? In Europe many (most?) beaches are topless and it's not hurting the kids.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!! (1)

Fritz T. Coyote (1087965) | about 7 years ago | (#18805743)

We are. Some of us are thinking very hard about how to insure our children grow up as free citizens, not subjects.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18806007)

i think it is ENsure.
thaaaaaaaanks. ;)

Crikey (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | about 7 years ago | (#18805705)

because we have an Internet out of control.
We should be thankful it's just the one, and that it hasn't spread to all the chatnets and userwebs yet. If it gets in the tubes, who knows where it will end.

what's wrong with watching porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18805717)

better than running around shooting people.

Where the heck are our guys? (3, Insightful)

autophile (640621) | about 7 years ago | (#18805767)

Every week I see a story about how such-and-such a CEO went in front of such-and-such a commission and spewed lies. When do our guys get to in front of commissions?


it's Utah (1)

aluminumangel (966324) | about 7 years ago | (#18805781)

Remember, folks, this is Utah we are talking about here... the land where alcohol is served at "private clubs" (through little government gizmos that premeasure the booze in your drink) and 3.2% beer.

When I was younger... (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | about 7 years ago | (#18805783)

...all my friends had older brothers that got them hard copies i.e. magazines. Maybe they should put child proof locks on the magazines?

Re:When I was younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18806071)

put child proof locks on the magazines

Sorry, my four year-old sister can open nearly all child proof locks.

1st Amendment Issues (2, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | about 7 years ago | (#18805787)

I was just reading a law review article on using threats to internet intermediateries to censor speech when the 1st Amendment would prevent direct censorship. Evidently, the Supreme Court ruled on this practice back when McCarthy was trying to use private entities to censor supposed communists. Hopefully, the case law will catch up to the technology, and we can ignore these idiots. See:155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 11 for complete article.

He found Naked Young Boys! (1)

vinn01 (178295) | about 7 years ago | (#18805799)

Headline should read:

  "SCO Chairman Discovers Naked Young Boys On The Internet!"

Along with several Utah politicians, and their "assistants", he'll be studying this further....

Danger of SCO's proposal (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 years ago | (#18805809)

So, if I correctly interpret the motive, we should widen our already broad criminal laws and punish those who have open wireless networks. Wow, the burden on our Criminal Justice system is heavy enough. Could you imagine the back log of criminal complaints and cases awaiting trial? Not to mention the implications of enforcement. I am sure Homeland Security would love this kind of criminalization because it would give them far reaching search and seizure powers. Our freedoms are already impacted enough by the Patriot Act, should we allow our government to become more gestapo-like?

How to prevent idiocy from gaining ground...Act! (4, Informative)

Irvu (248207) | about 7 years ago | (#18805831)

Act to oppose it.

If their "brain is frying trying to understand the technology involved" (damn!) then the best thing to do is explain it to them, along with the consequences of a bad decision. One could, for example write to a legislator explaining the concept of a popup blocker and the extremely low likelihood of "just entering a search term" causing a "tornado of popups" unless the search term was "I want a tornado of popups to take down my machine".

One could also explain, if one lived in Utah, that one would think very very poorly of any elected official who let SCO of all people railroad them into trying to railroad some unworkable and useless ban on a perfectly legitimate activity (open hotspots) based upon no evidence other than frying brains and luddite morons.

One could also, perhaps best, explain the extremely negative economic impact such legislation would have in the short term (forcing otherwise acceptable mom n' pops to spend money preventing legal activities) and in the long-term by hurting Utah's efforts to modernize its infrastructure, attract new businesses and convince prospective high-tech employers and employees that it isn't a backwards theocratic nuthouse but a modern forward-looking state that values, among other things, freedom of speech and technology at least half as much as it values free guns. (This will work for out-of-staters by the way if phrases along the lines of "I won't bring my money and jobs there...")

The (incredibly poor) Committee page is here [state.ut.us] . The Committee's members are:
Sen. Scott K. Jenkins, Co Chair
Rep. Michael E. Noel, Co Chair
Rep. Roger E. Barrus
Rep. Ralph Becker
Rep. Jim Bird
Rep. Melvin R. Brown
Sen. Mike Dmitrich
Rep. Janice M. Fisher
Rep. Lynn N. Hemingway
Rep. Steven R. Mascaro
Rep. Kay L. McIff
Sen. Darin G. Peterson
Rep. Aaron Tilton
Sen. Carlene M. Walker
Rep. Richard W. Wheeler
Richard C. North, Policy Analyst
Christopher R. Parker, Associate General Counsel
Tracey Fredman, Legislative Secretary

They can be located here [state.ut.us] .

Start your e-mailing and phone dialing (faxes are fun too!)

C'mon, all the cool /.'ers are doing it.

CP80 (2, Informative)

Irvu (248207) | about 7 years ago | (#18806025)

It is interesting, but not surprising, that the CP80 group [wikipedia.org] is involved in this. After all Yarro CEO of SCO is their Chairman.

For those not familiar with it CP80 is a proposal that calls for segregating internet content into "safe" and "unsafe" by legally declaring some ports to be regulated and some unregulated. The regulation model is the "Community Norms" model that the FCC uses to allow the Parents Television Council to tell us all what we can and cannot watch on TV.

Leaving aside the fact that this, like all similar proposals, ignores the manifold legal hurdles in defining "adult" and "non-adult" content (just read the book of Revelations in the Bible sometime) it also ignores the fact that the port-based communication is an international standard, and one that would not be workable for the U.S. to mandate alone.

My favorite part about it really is the fact that even if this act were implemented it would still require some special settings or filtration on the user end (i.e. the home computer) to keep the bad ports off. Thus the problem that it seems even the CEO of SCO has that his kids know more about computers than him, would still remain.

Incidentally Wal-Mart is listed as a major sponsor of the group.

To date the act does not appear to have been submitted to Congress.

Nope, he's wrong AND stupid (4, Insightful)

gorehog (534288) | about 7 years ago | (#18805895)

A lot of people don't understand that you cant blame the provider for what is done with the bandwidth. And, more importantly you can't restrain my right to free speech. If I want to put up a free access point to promote a cause then I must be allowed to do that as a matter of free speech. Only under extreme circumstances should that speech be curtailed (yelling fire in a theater, or where there is limited resources that MUST be regulated.) It's the responsibility of the individual to not commit a crime.

For instance, you don't arrest the CEO of Chevrolet when a drunk driver smacks into you with his Camaro. You don't arrest factory workers from Stanley tools if someone hits you with a hammer. Why would you place the blame for kiddie porn in the hands of the bandwidth provider.

The only reason SCO comes out against free, open hotspots is because they see the potential for financial benefit from forcing difficult technology on people.

I call bullshit. (2, Interesting)

AlphaLop (930759) | about 7 years ago | (#18805961)

He is obviously fibbing or he is incompetent.

1. This issue is so important to him but he can't remember what search term he used? He does not remember what he was doing on the internet and yet he wants to legislate it?

2. Just because you are not techno savvy enough to control what pours into your computer don't assume "the children" can't. They are most likely much more internet and computer capable then he is.

3. Kinda related to number 2 but if you can't figure out how to channel surf without accidentally tuning into a program that may not be good for children does than mean we need to ban Showtime, Skinamax or even FX (that "The Shield" is pretty violent, oh wait, violence is fine its boobies that are dangerous).

4. you dont get caught in a "Pornado" (I actually really like this term and will use it from now on) by going to Nickalodian.com(however its spelled)or other mainstream sites, you get them surfing for porn or warez... I wonder which he was searching for? (Doesn't it seem like these people who crusade against something end up being busted for it later 'see anti-gay preacher')

God I am so sick of these Smacktards.

What about air? (1)

ThoreauHD (213527) | about 7 years ago | (#18806011)

If he's using all of the air in the room, should we sue him for taking what isn't his? Sunlight? Radio waves? Bovine methane emissions? And doesn't deputy dipshit have something more important that he should be doing? Like making up more lies about Linux and being Microsoft's crusty cum rag.

Trouble in Plain City (1)

msblack (191749) | about 7 years ago | (#18806065)

Gosh, I went searching for information on tornadoes but
because I misspelled the search term, all this porn kept
popping up. It was awful!

And all week long, your Plain City youth'll be fritterin' away
I say, your young men'll be fritterin'
Fritterin' away their noontime, suppertime, choretime, too
Turn the wireless on and surf for porn

Oh, ya got lots and lots o' trouble
I'm thinkin' of the kids in the knickerbockers shirttails,
young ones surfin' the web from free wireless hot spots
Ya got trouble, folks, right here in Plain City and Provo too
Trouble with a capital "T"and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "porn"

The Bubble (Utah Mormons vs Non-Utah Mormons) (3, Interesting)

sadler121 (735320) | about 7 years ago | (#18806069)

That is how non-utah mormons refer to Utah mormons. Most likly there is a reason we decide to not live in Utah and that is because the people are very backward. They can not think for themseleves, and have to be told over the pulpit how to think.

Mind you this is not the religion Joseph Smith re-organized. He made it clear man has to get knowledge from God, not from man. The current state of Utah Mormonism is due to years of isolation. Utah Mormons form a tight cliche and as a result, it is hard to break into that cliche for those who are not Mormons, or recent converts into Mormonism.

Sometimes I think if would be good for Utah Mormons to actually leave Utah, and live somewhere else where Mormons are in the minority. Then they would be forced to live with people who do not agree with them, and be able to expand there knowledge of the outside world.

At least that is why I am not in Utah.

(I served an LDS mission in Salt Lake City, which would take a novel to even summerize).

OMFG IT'S TRUE!!!! (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | about 7 years ago | (#18806085)

I just turned off WPA and made my SSID visible and a crowd of laptop-laden teens gathered outside my dwelling sporting tents in their shorts! This SCO guy is onto something... or is that ON something?

For Dog's sake won't somebody think of welcoming our new hotspot overlords already, you insensitive clod?!

For my next trick I'm setting up a Beowolf cluster of SCO-Unix boxen to provide free pr0n at all wireless and wired hotspots! Why do you think they call it HOTspot? Come on!
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