You know, I won't lie. I can understand why they might want to move their porn away from precious port 80. It's be soooo much easier to put it on some other port so it can be filtered by your home router... Hey does anyone know how to configure a router? I can almost guarantee these same idiots that support the legislation don't :P
But then, if proper meta-tagging was used, all you would need to do is set your I.E. content settings. They've existed for how many release versions? Let's face it, the whole thing was probably started because little bobby-jo or his sister bobby-sue were searching for sandboxes on google at a school with no form of filtering and voila. Porn at school!
Or maybe they had to use a simple bypass for their lax school network's security like typing "https://" instead of "http://" Which let's face it, answers the real problem with their solution of "clean port 80" over proper education that they shouldn't view it at school because their teachers don't know what sex is and will be offended by it.
It's just that easy to forward a port to something else, set up a web proxy and now boom all of my port "6969" (porn) traffic is on port 80 before it reaches my school. Coming from a registered U.S. IP, and all seems fine and dandy until Mr. Thompson walks by and has a heart attack.
So again, I can understand their misguided prayers for a clean port 80. But ultimately it will hold no avail, even if they did manage to pass such inane legislation, every school aged child has learned how to set up their own proxies by now.
Time's like this I'm glad to live in Canada, where a person isn't afraid to put on devil horns grab his girl friend smear her in ketchup and reach for the biggest butcher knife they have when Jehovah's witness come walking up the drive. "Hey Joe! You got the sacrificial alter ready? Oh hello can I help you? We were just about to start mass, care to join us?"
Decius wrote:
The governor of Utah signed a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday that calls on the US Congress to do something about the rising tide of Internet pornography, preferably using technology to stick it in a ghetto where those who don't want to see it don't have to do so. The resolution, which passed both houses of the Utah legislature, was backed by CP80 ("Clean port 80"), a group founded and headed by Ralph Yarro. CP80's plan to cleanse the Internet isn't the only controversy that Yarro's involved in, though; he also happens to chair the board of directors for SCO.
OK, its official. SCO doesn't just hate linux. They hate the entire Internet.
"The Internet is not a force of nature, it's a man-made creation. It can be changed and evolved to better serve us all," said Yarro in a statement after the signing of the resolution. "There is no reason why we should tolerate an Internet that allows children to easily access pornography."
Someone has been reading Lessig... And getting exactly the wrong point. What, exactly, is the problem with filtering software?
CP80's solution would apply to the US only, of course, and their plan for dealing with international pornographers (who are unlikely to move to another port dictated by the US) is a simple but draconian one: consumers would ask ISPs to "simply block all IP addresses originating from a non-compliant country." Problem solved!
Instead of clamoring for legislation that forces anyone who says the word fuck to move to a different TCP port why don't they just ask pornographers to include an HTML meta tag on their pages. Not authoritarian enough? Doesn't generate revenue for our financial backers by creating a government mandated market for their software systems? Its just not any fun if its Constitutional? Sure, you won't get 100% compliance, but you're not going to get that anyway.
This page really erks me.
The Internet Community Port Act (ICPA) protects your right to publish, view AND block content deemed inappropriate to minors - a choice that you do not have on the Internet today.
You can install Internet filtering software.
ICPA supports the use of widely accepted social and legal standards, such as MPAA, RIAA, ESRP, FCC, the legal definitions for obscenity, indecency and harmful to minors, or any other community-defined standards.
In other words, anyone who says the word fuck would have to move to a different TCP port. Its very important that children don't hear the word fuck, because it harms them developmentally, as opposed to the word shucks, which is just a word. Did I mention that Unicorns are real?
Categorization Is Not Censorship
If categorization were censorship then phone books, libraries, street signs and all other organizational structures would all be censorship - and they are not.
The part of this system that categorizes doesn't censor. Its the fact that it is coupled with another part that prevents people from accessing content in certain categories that makes this censorship.
Obscenity is Not a Protected form of Speech
Here we go with the Obscenity/Indecency/Pornography slight of hand from the CDA days. Obscenity is already illegal on port 80 or any other port. No new law is needed to clean obscentiy off of the Internet. This proposal doesn't target obscenity and has nothing to do with obscenity, so why talk about it? Because its intentionally misleading. The content these people are really targetting is people who say things like fuck on the Internet, but they aren't going to be clear about that because if people really understood what this group wants they wouldn't support it.
ICPA is about individual choice. Each individual can choose to use it, or not.
Apparently they don't see minors as "individuals." I wonder if they see them as "people."
Society without law is anarchy. The current Internet absent of any laws is equally chaotic and clearly dangerous to minors.
Chaos is bad! We must have order! Rules are necessary for their own sake!
