I just found a group called Clean Port 80 that is promoting legislative action that is perfect in my opinion. Below is from their web site.
quote:CP80 is not a content filter, nor is it another .xxx-domain-name solution.
CP80 is an Internet Channel Initiative that uses existing technology to re-categorize all content on the Web into two Internet channels: one for general-public content and the other for adult content (pornography).
By creating two Internet channels, consumers now have a choice—something that does not exist today on the Internet. Concerned parents and employers can protect their children and businesses from pornography—while consenting adults have unrestricted access to legal adult content.
With CP80 everyone’s freedom of speech is protected.
We use a different "channel" for email than the web (and eventually we'll have to use additional channels for the web because it is getting so full). Does anyone else understand the technology?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
How is the content filtered, er, re-categorized, and who decides what category things belong to?
In theory, it looks good.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
The law already defines what is pornography and what isn't. Just like with the "do not call list" if you find something on the "clean" port that shouldn't be there, you call and they get fined if they find it to be true. Since the US created and controls the world wide web (and the domain names), internationally it shouldn't be hard to control.
If you were to go to Playboy.com, their front page would be legal and on the clean port; but if you clicked on it you would automatically be transported into the other port (you wouldn't notice) unless you chose not to have access to it. In that case I imagine you would have a page pop up that said "access denied. to see this page please contact your ISP".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Adam's right. This is ultimately no more effective than a TLD solution.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Not true adam, there would not be voluntary compliance; it would be law with fines.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which, again, could be achieved through a TLD solution. This brings very little new to the table, since the central problem -- the classification and identification of porn content -- is unaddressed.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
You know, I'm sure these folks have thought about these points. I'm going to contact them and see if they'll respond to me or to these posts. Thanks.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see something like this happen eventually. The Web can stay unregulated only so long.
Of course they'll be ways around it within a week of its inception. And how long before ISPs start charging extra for that adult subscription?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
How about if they created a "G" channel for people who are unable or unwilling to deal with a less restricted internet. Access to publish on that channel would be strictly controlled and no content deemed unsuitable for children would be allowed. It wouldn't restrict anyone's freedom to publish on the "real" internet and it would provide a "safe" place for those who are unable to adequately filter content themselves.
It seems like it would be a lot easier to create a "clean" secondary net than to create a closet to shove all the "dirty" stuff into. It seems like it would be easier to err on the side of caution under this system without restricing anyone's freedom of speech, and it would solve the problem of getting certain publishers to voluntarily censor or restrict themselves.
This seems like a good system since those offended would proactively be creating an atmosphere they want rather than trying to change the atmosphere that is to suit them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, Karl, that WOULD work.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
What a great idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nothing to stop people from creating such a G "channel" on their own. Just pick an unused port and start using it for G content, and keep a centralized whitelist to keep out unsuitable content (though most people creating unsuitable content will have no interest in getting on it). Choose a browser, and create an extension or modification that makes it only able to browse sites on that port, with the option of using the whitelist, and a report button for violations of the G rating.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The one problem with this idea, I believe, is that the desire to restrict or eliminate the "offensive" is often as much a desire to prevent others from doing it at all as much as it is to "protect the children". In other words, there are many people who find the whole idea of "pornography" as they define it offensive and something to be eradicated. Creating a safe haven would not address the issue for these people, thus would not satisfy them. However, if there were a movement behind a "clean haven" sub-internet, you could pretty easily sort out who has what motives by who supported it and who didn't.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
But those who create unsuitable content do want people to stumble on it. The more kids and others they expose to their content the more likely they are to increase their subscriptions....
(edited for spelling)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That doesn't hold true across the board. In every commercial endeavor there are those who are unscrupulous and those who are willing to play by the rules.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In my experience, that's just not generally true. Sure, there are a few people who do things like create near-spelling domains and the like, but most successful porn businesses are just that, businesses, and try to be responsible businesses.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Kids don't have credit cards. Not a good market for Internet sites. There's also the problem of going to jail.
I like the voluntary compliance model. It's certainly a good place to start -- then, if it fails, we could try something else.
The involuntary categorization has some interesting problems. SurfWatch once banned part of Socks the Cat's White House site for kids, because of a suspicious name: couples.html. It was an innocent mistake, and fixed, but computers just aren't up to the task of deciding what's salacious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does the following exist:
A web browser, like Internet Explorer, Mozilla, etc designed for kids to filter out bad cotent. Say, You download it for a one time fee and set it up on your child's computer, or on yours, but only for the kid's login name. Then, when the kid goes to use the service, he types in the name of the site he wants to visit, and it is sent off to an office somewhere where a guy checks the site first to see if it is okay or not. Then sends back a signal that allows the browser to access the site.
I know there are systems like Webnanny and what not that have a fixed list of sites to allow and block, but they are riddled with holes. Sometimes they block perfectly legit sites and let others that are inappropriate through.
If it's an emergency, parents can have an override code that allows the child access to a site, and since the parent has to be right there to use it, then can view what the child is viewing and supervise. Bonus side effect is, they will know when their kid is using his computer for homework.
I don't recall seeing a program like this out there. Then again, I don't have kids, I haven't really looked. I know it'd be a slow process, but after awhile, they browser will have built up a list of sites to permenantly block, which will streamline the process as requests come in. Any new name will be checked, any old name will be compared with past reports and then sent on its way.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
Glad to see people discussing solutions to problems. Let me just add a few thoughts.
CP80 is not a TLD. .XXX would fail for many reasons. Their "voluntary" approach for one and the fact that there is no way to manage/filter TLDs. It is a loosing battle. Even if there were a law in the US that forced pornographers onto .xxx, nothing would stop them from moving outside of the US and then to continue publish as they wish.
CP80 combines legislation and existing technology to start creating Internet Channels, such as a pornography channel.
By using ports and protocols--what we are refer to as Internet Channels--you gain the ability to manage ports at the ISP level, where jr. will find it more difficult to hack into or work around the solution.
A parent or business owner could request the general-public channel (port 80) only, which would prevent their children or employees from accessing the pornography channel.
However, a consenting adult can freely subscribe to the adult channel and view as much legal pornography as he like.
We are not censoring/blocking pornography. We are simply defining content on the Internet--using existing legal definitions--to give end users the ability to choose. There is no choice today. If you are connected to the Internet, you are connected to porn.
Secondly, with regards to dealing with foriegn countries. The CP80 solution also suggest an IP filtering/block at the ISP, using larger aggregate IP blocks that are representative of geopolitical/legal boundaries. If a country cannot manage the content published from within its own country, it doesn't get included in the CP80 whitelist.
Economic forces would then entice countries to put laws and regulations in place so that they could participate.
What is important to note is that this is a ISP to end user solution. An individual choice. If you don't want porn, you can choose to subscribe to the general-public content channel (port 80)only; If an end user wants to view pornography, he subscribes to both channels; and if an end user wants regular Internet, he can get that too. Its up to him.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Any intelligent "Jr." would discover the abundance of proxies pretty much instantaneously.
edit: and I think your post makes quite clear the totalitarian preferences of the effort.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Ummm...
I have no problem with the internet as it is. Most people can tell from the Google description whether a website that comes up on a search has adult content or not. Typos that result in adult website hits are very unlikely, at least for me. But that could be because I use Google for almost everything.
If parents are so concerned with what Junior may be accessing on the internet, why aren't they monitoring what he's doing?
My children have their own folder on my desktop, in which I keep shortcuts to their games and websites. If they hear about a website from TV or one of their friends, they can write it down for me, and I'll check it out after they go to bed and put it in their folder if it's okay. I also pre-search and pre-screen websites to use for lessons. The rest of the time, they know they are not allowed to just type stuff into the address bar. They are not allowed to use the computer unless the screen is in full view of an adult.
Why do we need "channels" at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If a country cannot manage the content published from within its own country, it doesn't get included in the CP80 whitelist.
Wow. So you'd blacklist an entire country if they didn't go along?
See KarlEd's suggestion for something that makes a lot more sense.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
About the only place I come upon unwanted pornography is in my email. Internet restrictions won't solve that problem. I practically never come across porn sites on the web accidentally. Therefore I think "If you're connected to the internet you're connected to porn" is overstatement at least.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*looks around suspiciously*
People on Hatrack are saying "porn."
*filters*
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>Therefore I think "If you're connected to the internet you're connected to porn" is overstatement at least.
What choice does a parent with an overly curious child have, or an addict who still needs to use the Internet, or an employer who is losing money because his employees are surfing porn at work--or just got sued for sexual harrasment?
Filters don't work and neither will TLD.
So if not channels, what is the solution?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
1) Be a parent. Put the internet-connected computer in the living room, talk about appropriate and inappropriate content with the child, and put limits on internet usage.
2) If you're an addict who is unable to restrain him or herself, "channels" won't help a whit if you have the least knowledge of modern technology. Filters would help considerably more, actually.
3) If your employees are surfing porn at work, warn them that is inappropriate, then fire them. Or if you're not willing to, learn about intranets, whitelists, and logs, which any company serious about cracking down on inappropriate internet usages should.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
..1) Be a parent. Put the internet-connected computer in the living room, talk about appropriate and inappropriate content with the child, and put limits on internet usage.
That doesn't work all the time. There are plenty of stories of frustrated parent's who did just that and found their children were still surfing porn.
2) If you're an addict who is unable to restrain him or herself, "channels" won't help a whit if you have the least knowledge of modern technology. Filters would help considerably more, actually.
Channels will, if you read the previous posts. If you only requested the clean channel from your ISP, then you would have to contact the ISP and re-subscribe to the Adult Channel. At least that is more of an obstical than simply turning off your filter.
3) If your employees are surfing porn at work, warn them that is inappropriate, then fire them. Or if you're not willing to, learn about intranets, whitelists, and logs, which any company serious about cracking down on inappropriate internet usages should.
So if you had a key engineer that you had invested years of time in, or a key salesman that carried alot of your sales accounts, do you honestly think it would be that easy to simply fire them. Why not create a clean environment that would avoid the situation all together.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
1) Then the parent wasn't restricting internet usage as far as necessary (say, only allowing the child online while they were in the room). Furthermore, its relatively easy to set up internet such that all sites a child visits are logged, and then peruse that list for inappropriate sites and proxies. Not to mention that a solid whitelist-based filter is perfectly reasonable for a young child.
2) I'm amazed at your ignorance of the swarms of internet proxies people make available to easily deal with something so trivial as port-based filtering. Without need for contacting any ISPs.
3) What parts of intranets, whitelists, and logs didn't you understand, particularly the first two?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, not to mention that most of Europe would never implement a scheme like this, and that businesses in the US would (quite reasonably) never go along with a scheme involving shutting down internet connections with Europe, and of course the DoD would throw a hissy-fit about the notion as well.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>> 1) Then the parent wasn't restricting internet usage as far as necessary (say, only allowing the child online while they were in the room). Furthermore, its relatively easy to set up internet such that all sites a child visits are logged, and then peruse that list for inappropriate sites and proxies. Not to mention that a solid whitelist-based filter is perfectly reasonable for a young child.
Why do I have to limit my child's access to the Internet. If I told a pornographer that he could only use the Internet at certain times and go to certain places, we would be standing in the Supreme Court fighting over a free speech issue. But when I want to have the same freedoms for myself and my children, some how that is wrong.
Furthermore, many parents do not have the $$, the technical ability, or time to manage a filter solution. Filters are broken.
Why is it so difficult an idea. Does your basic cable service come with every channel available--including pornography channels. Do you have to watch and counsel your children not to watch the porn channels. Or do you simply not subscribe to them?
2) I'm amazed at your ignorance of the swarms of internet proxies people make available to easily deal with something so trivial as port-based filtering. Without need for contacting any ISPs.
Proxies would be dealt with through legislation. Allow people to access pornography illegally through a proxy and risk high fines and jail time. Your choice.
3) What parts of intranets, whitelists, and logs didn't you understand, particularly the first two?
You, yourself have stated how easily they can be hacked and worked around. They are broken.
>>Oh, not to mention that most of Europe would never implement a scheme like this, and that businesses in the US would (quite reasonably) never go along with a scheme involving shutting down internet connections with Europe, and of course the DoD would throw a hissy-fit about the notion as well.
That is the beauty of the solution. No one else has to follow it or accept it. You don't want it--don't sign up for it. Creating channels does not affect your Internet experience at all.
But if I choose to use it. I can all but guarantee a clean and safe Internet environment for my family.
No harm. No foul.
If the rest of the world does not want to market their products and services to me--and the potential millions of other consumers who would pick up the service--they don't have to.
But why wouldn't they.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Filters don't work and neither will TLD.
I find it amazing -- and amusing -- that you insist on this, and yet with a straight face assert that the obvious problems with using port-based filtering can be fixed through legislation.
Because they are the same problems. And if you can solve the problems with port filtering with legislation, you could solve the problem with filters and TLDs, too.
But you can't. Legislation won't solve anything, because you have multiple jurisdictions AND the problem of identifying and classifying porn.
quote:You don't want it--don't sign up for it. Creating channels does not affect your Internet experience at all.
How could it not? It WOULD affect my Internet experience, if for example something I don't consider porn but which your imaginary legislative body decided was porn was put on the porn-only port.
I fail to understand why you think pornographers across the planet would passively submit to "legislation" that would have this effect.
quote: Does your basic cable service come with every channel available--including pornography channels. Do you have to watch and counsel your children not to watch the porn channels.
And this may be your problem. I think your use of the word "channel" is symptomatic of your issue; you seem to think that providing Internet content is similar in some way to providing broadcast content. I find that view highly unrealistic.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The other persistent problem is that this requires an easily quantifiable definition of "porn," and I have yet to hear of such a thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
myarro, any competent IT staff can manage a whitelist. Since they're watching the list of sites, anything looking like the use of a proxy server can be easily guarded against. Easy to get around for a home user with nobody supervising him but himself is very different from easy to get around for a person being observed (at a remove in time) by someone with technical knowledge.
Plus, if someone continues to flaunt the rules of the workplace so badly, I don't care how much you think you need them, they should be fired.
Also, you don't seem to get my point re: Europe at all. Without the cooperation of Europe (and other countries), internet sites based there cannot effectively be separated into "channels". Its just not possible. This means they will remain available over port 80.
And as for dealing with proxies through legislation, do you even hear yourself speak? The Supreme Court would smack down that notion like nobody's business. In particular because all it takes to have a "proxy" is to set up some basic SSH port forwarding through a remote computer, something that's completely impossible to stop without stopping the use of SSH, and I truly hope you understand how impossible that is.
And its not that the rest of the world "wouldn't want to market their products and services" its that they'd look at your delusional little piece of legislation, laugh, and wait for ISPs and businesses to fight it to the death, because our large businesses depend on being able to connect to the whole internet.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:So if you had a key engineer that you had invested years of time in, or a key salesman that carried alot of your sales accounts, do you honestly think it would be that easy to simply fire them. Why not create a clean environment that would avoid the situation all together.
What if the addiction were alcohol? What if you found liquor in his desk? Would you submit all employees to strip search in order to keep one trouble employee? No, I think it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to fire employees who flagrantly violate company rules. Good employers give due dilligence to helping troubled employees, but the line has to stop somewhere.
quote:Why do I have to limit my child's access to the Internet.
What? Why do you have to parent your child at all? Why don't we pass legislation making everyone else in the world parent your child? That's the most ludicrous question I've heard in this forum maybe ever.
quote: If I told a pornographer that he could only use the Internet at certain times and go to certain places, we would be standing in the Supreme Court fighting over a free speech issue. But when I want to have the same freedoms for myself and my children, some how that is wrong.
Presumably your theoretical "pornographer" is an adult with full rights. He has earned a place in society where we presume he is able to police himself among all the legal choices in the world. Your child, on the other hand, is still in training. It is expected that you will provide the stopgaps until such time as he is able to adequately control himself.
quote:But when I want to have the same freedoms for myself and my children, some how that is wrong.
But see, you already have the same freedoms. You, too, can go anywhere on the internet you want and post anything you want within the TOS of the sites you frequent or your hosting ISP. What you're saying is "if the pornographer has freedom of expression, why don't I have freedom to censor him." It should be obvious that the two phrases you've tried to connect are opposites, not the same thing at all. In other words, you both have the right to create spaces, and you both have the right to not frequent spaces. What you do not have is the right to make spaces you don't like not be there at all.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'm amazed at the assumption that porn vendors don't want to be identified as porn vendors. Consider the billboards on the Interstate for such places; or the front pages, if you ever see them, for web sites.
What is it about this that could possibly lead us to believe the advertisers DON'T want their product identified? They do everything in their power to make it clear what they're selling.
The .xxx thing is worth a try. The use of force shouldn't be the _first_ solution to every social problem.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm amazed at the assumption that porn vendors don't want to be identified as porn vendors.
A significant number of porn vendors on the Internet definitely want people to stumble across their sites by accident and/or misdirection.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:What? Why do you have to parent your child at all? Why don't we pass legislation making everyone else in the world parent your child? That's the most ludicrous question I've heard in this forum maybe ever.
Karl, you said everything I wanted to say, but better than I would've said it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
So, why is there so much opposition to something that would obviously help with the problem? It isn't a complete solution, of course, but some protection is better than what exists now (At least, not without paying through the nose to get it). Why not stop arguing technical crap and just tell the truth, "This is going to make it harder/more expensive for ME to get pornography and is therefore evil." Come on, admit it.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
. . .because, like many people, I -don't- look at Internet pornography, and I'm still opposed on principle to attempts to "clean" the Internet?
I'm not interested in it; I don't look at it. I wasn't interested in it as a child, and I didn't look at it then, either. I do not believe the pornography currently available on the Internet -is- a problem, so of course I'm not going to agree with your "solution."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: . . .because, like many people, I -don't- look at Internet pornography, and I'm still opposed on principle to attempts to "clean" the Internet?
I'm not interested in it; I don't look at it. I wasn't interested in it as a child, and I didn't look at it then, either. I do not believe the pornography currently available on the Internet -is- a problem, so of course I'm not going to agree with your "solution."
In which case, the "solution" will not affect you in the slightest. Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
The solution -will- affect me.
1.) It will take my tax dollars to implement it. Since I believe the technology described is impossible to apply to the "problem" as defined, I believe that every one of those dollars will go to waste.
2.) It will require creating a definition of pornography (what the law has now is based on local community standards, which do not apply to the Internet), which will lead to legal battles over material that I, personally, do not consider in any way pornographic. People have tried to ban The Scarlet Letter and Lolita from schoolrooms on the grounds that they were pornographic; I do not understand why you believe the distinction will be so easy to draw on the Internet. Take a look at previous case law based around the Communications Decency Act, or at the practical issues surrounded the implementation of the Children's Internet Protection Act.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm worried about the label "adult content" being applied to things other than pornography. I suppose this is the same as the "definition" issue, but I could see where if you put the line too far from sexually explicit that you'd be ensuring that nobody with a filter had access to reasonably important information because it was considered "adult" in nature.
So, would it mean that discussions of sexual practices would only be available to those who also allowed themselves exposure to internet-based porn?
Would a rape crisis website only be on the adult side? Or would there have to be one version of it that talked "nice" and another that gave actual facts?
I don't think these are insurmountable problems, but every time we try to draw a line to protect children, we run the risk of perpetuating a woeful lack of information about important issues in our society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So, why is there so much opposition to something that would obviously help with the problem? It isn't a complete solution, of course, but some protection is better than what exists now (At least, not without paying through the nose to get it). Why not stop arguing technical crap and just tell the truth, "This is going to make it harder/more expensive for ME to get pornography and is therefore evil." Come on, admit it.
See, Boris, I don't think this "solution" does obviously help with the problem. Nor do I think it will make it harder for anyone to get porn.
Why do you think it would?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, why is there so much opposition to something that would obviously help with the problem?
There's almost an entire page of people telling you it won't help with the problem. Many of them doing so have extensive experience with the technical issues involved. Even if they are wrong, it is clearly not obvious that this will help.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Because it is not at all obvious to me that this proposed solution would help with the problem. The gaps and flaws are so huge I don't think it would make one iota of difference, and if America tried to push it on other countries we would once again look like a laughingstock and a bully.
Because I'm concerned that things I don't consider pornography, such as safer sex information, will be included in shunted to the "bad" side of the internet and teenagers who need it won't be able to access it.
Because I am against stupid, wasteful legislation even if it doesn't affect me.
Because I am against blue laws of every kind.
Because I am in favor of personal responsibility instead of legislating morality. . . if you don't want your kid to access porn, you need to control your kid, not the porn. If your kid is smart enough to get around parental controls, then they are smart enough to get around this, too, so once again. . . it will serve no useful purpose.
Because it is likely that ISPs will, in fact, charge extra for having access to both ports, and this will make it more expensive for law-abiding, consenting adults, yes including myself, to access legal materials. I have no idea if anything I want would end up on the "porn" side, because I don't know who's going to be making the decisions. If the "real" internet becomes purely "family friendly" material, then yes, I will want access to both. Where's the line? I wouldn't want my kid watching trailers for R rated movies. Accessing bookstores that sell bondage gear or sexually oriented books. Reading certain web comics, like Something Positive, for instance. Are all those things going to be on the porn channel? Why? And how are you going to get them all there? Legislation is no good without enforcement, and at this point I honestly believe that that is an impossible task.
So why not go with Karl's idea?
quote: How about if they created a "G" channel for people who are unable or unwilling to deal with a less restricted internet. Access to publish on that channel would be strictly controlled and no content deemed unsuitable for children would be allowed. It wouldn't restrict anyone's freedom to publish on the "real" internet and it would provide a "safe" place for those who are unable to adequately filter content themselves.
It's actually feisable and would accomplish the same goal, without trampling on anyone's rights. Where's the problem there?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Ahh, and now we're talking about the actual ISSUE instead of whether or not it will do anything. That's what has been missing here. Here's what I want to know. There are sites on the internet which deal exclusively in what is, with no doubt in anyone's mind, pornographic material. There are legitimate businesses and there are of course shady sites which will take any traffic in any form, because traffic = money. Why would it be so bad for us to seperate these sites from every other site?
(Sorry for editing this to include more junk...But I'm thinking about all this stuff and I don't want to keep posting beside myself)
I think that we should be talking about ways that technology like this COULD help instead of why it won't work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me pose a question to the technical people:
Assume one solution will be implemented, either port restriction or TLD restrictions.
Which would be a more effective solution to the technical problem of isolating particular content from particular users who opt out of that content?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ahh, and now we're talking about the actual ISSUE instead of whether or not it will do anything.
What the hell? Did you bother to read the thread? The actual issue is the desirability of the proposed solution. Desirability includes whether there is an actual problem to be solved, whether the proposed solution solves the problem, whether the costs of the proposed solution outweigh the costs of not implementing the proposed solution, whether another solution could solve the problem more effectively, and whether another solution can be implemented for lower cost.
Cost refers to resources need for implementation and compliance as well as other costs: lost business, lost freedom, etc.
Whether or not it will do anything IS part of the actual issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Ahh, and now we're talking about the actual ISSUE instead of whether or not it will do anything.
No. I'm still talking about whether or not it will do anything. And if it won't do anything, I don't care about the rest of it....
---------
quote: Assume one solution will be implemented, either port restriction or TLD restrictions.
They're both equally ineffective. Even assuming that you could legally require all pornographers to sit on port 84 (or something), redirects would be written almost immediately to provide access over port 80. You'd have to criminalize the use of redirects for the purposes of accessing porn. And assuming we could require anyone displaying porn to sit on a .xxx TLD, it would still be necessary to provide filter software to block that TLD and somehow monitor all other TLDs for scraped content.
In other words, neither has a snowball's chance in hell of working, from both a technological AND a sociological perspective. Whitelisting is probably the only effective way to handle this issue.
That said, I think a TLD solution is more elegant. It doesn't require a new port for special traffic, and actually makes it fairly easy to identify when a site has been misclassified -- unlike a port solution, unless browsers are designed to start prominently identifying what "channel" someone is currently browsing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There's such a huge porn trade because there's such a huge demand for it. Last yar porn accounted for an estimated $10 billion in revenue, and that's just the self-identified adult film and magazine industry. From the CBS article linked above:
quote:Then there are the big hotel chains: Hilton, Marriot, Hyatt, Sheraton and Holiday Inn, which all offer adult films on in-room pay-per-view television systems. And they are purchased by a whopping 50 percent of their guests, accounting for nearly 70 percent of their in-room profits. One hotel owner said, "We have to have it. Our guests demand it.”
At least one lawyer successfully defended a client accused of violating community standards by presenting video rental totals and hotel pay-per-view numbers in the area to demonstrate that whether they admit to it or not, a sizeable amount of that community did in fact want porn.
So here's a wild suggestion. It's gonna sound crazy, and I'm sure it's ultimately unworkable, but I would like to put forward a bold proposition.
Let's change the market.
Let's teach our kids about sex, self-respect, strong relationships, and love. Let's work towards having strong, long-lasting relationships ourselves so that we provide positive role models. Let's dismiss any pornography that seeks to demean women, but recognize (or at least tolerate) any that seeks to celebrate them. Let's stop watching news programs about adulterous celebrities and sports stars, and stop watching TV shows with gratuitous sex and careless choices. Let's ignore movies that glorify sex without responsibility. Let's work to make responsible people worthy of respect.
Banning, blocking, or pushing against porn simply won't work because there's too much of a demand for it. You can't change the laws of supply and demand. You can, however, try to lessen the demand.
If your child should catch a glimpse of a debasing pornographic act, they should avoid it the same way they would a white supremicist video -- and for the same reasons -- instinctively, because they know it's wrong. Not because they've been told it's disgusting or that they'll get in trouble if they see it, but because our children should know, bone-deep, that people are deserving of respect. And the only way to do that is to prove it.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote: Chris's post
::applauds wildly::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Chris, your satire just keeps getting better and better.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I hadn't even brought up that there are plenty of domains hosting large swathes of perfectly acceptable content and some adult content (for instance, there are adult LJ communities). Granted, content like this is at least theoretically segregable, but it would be very difficult to pull of in any reasonable way and would significantly disrupt such sites' business plans.
Or then there are sites like flickr, which allows some fairly sensuous stuff on it, where the potentially objectionable stuff is not at all segregable. These sites are then either forced to censor their stuff further so as to remain on the "normal" web, or move their entire site onto the "porn" web, despite having very little "porn". That's censorship, and stupid censorship at that, as such sites provide very useful free services that many people not interested in porn at all take advantage of.
There is no viable legislative solution forcing the separation of objectionable or adult sites into a particular technical side-alley.
Now, as mentioned before, having a way for, say, particularly kid friendly sites to be evaluated and receive an appropriate domain would be perfectly possible. I suggest having a "kids" tld. Heck, make it .kids .
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I've heard the claim that pornographic web sites regularly try to lure people in with trickery, but still no evidence. I guess that's ok. I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
myarro, you mentioned earlier that a parent has no control over a curious child. This to me shows a considerable amount of ignorance on your part. I think you are forgetting that a child, regardless of parents, age, sex, upbringing or education, is still a human being, capable of making decisions, having opinions and acting on their impulses.
No matter how good a parent you are, a child's actions are his/her responsibility and completely out of your control. As a teenager, I was not of "legal-age," in the sense that I could not smoke, drink, or register to vote...I was, in a sense, not a full ciizen of the US. Despite that, I could still choose my path in life. The freedoms that people like Locke, Mill, and Jefferson talked about are freedoms that everyone share. They aren't freedoms that we acquire when we gain enough wisdom in life to make good decisions, they are ours whether we want them or not.
As a parent, I think that the best you can do is set a good example on how to live responsibly and honorably, and then hope that enough of it sinks in. Children and teens rarely have the wisdom of an adult, and as such their decisions may not be as smart or as good, but they can still make them. No amount af legislation, argument or regulation is going to change that.
Creating two channels for would further define adults as "responsible" and all children as "irresponsible" as well as "immature." In a very general sense, this may be true, but consider some of the "adults" you've been around in your life. Exactly how different are we, aside from having a larger database of memories, from a teenager, or a child for that matter? I went to a party once where a 23 year-old man drank six beers, three shots of Bourbon, smoked two cigars, and shotgunned two more beers to top things off. I participated in a high school group that discussed societal problems like drugs, bullying, sexual harrassment, rape, and suicide more frankly and honestly than just about any other group of "adults" I've been around.
But, in addition, how many of us adults have ever done something, while not irresponsible, but just childish? I can't pick up a broom-stick without wielding it like a sword for at least a moment. I still enjoy reading comic books and popular fiction. Yet, I am an adult, so it is okay for me to "choose" to be irresponsible and childlike. So I just have to ask, what difference is there?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>How could it not? It WOULD affect my Internet experience, if for example something I don't consider porn but which your imaginary legislative body decided was porn was put on the porn-only port.
That is a great point, honestly. A line in the sand would have to be drawn and undoubtedly, there would be people who either want access to something that is on the porn channel, or who have access to something that is not on the porn channel. Either way, they would be unhappy, such as yourself.
However, I want to point out that CP80 does not force people to get the CP80 solution. You can still get a standard Internet connection. You would still get everything.
However, if I wanted to avoid porn, I could atleast use the CP80 solution as a first step. I am able to get the protection I am looking for without infringing on anyone else's choices.
>>I fail to understand why you think pornographers across the planet would passively submit to "legislation" that would have this effect.
Legal porn business may not have a problem with it at all. But illegal pornographers will definitely have a problem with it.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>The other persistent problem is that this requires an easily quantifiable definition of "porn," and I have yet to hear of such a thing.
There is a legal definition for pornography and for obscenity. They already exist.
There would definitely be gray areas--there's no doubt about it. But there is plenty of content out there that could be easily categorized.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you're expecting there to be a central database of whether or not every single website in the world is pornographic, and for ISPs to redirect (at the IP level) traffic on websites which are deemed pornographic to differing ports for certain customers?
Are you mad?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>And its not that the rest of the world "wouldn't want to market their products and services" its that they'd look at your delusional little piece of legislation, laugh, and wait for ISPs and businesses to fight it to the death, because our large businesses depend on being able to connect to the whole internet.
Once again, a business could simply request a standard Internet connect. Nobody has to use a CP80 solution.
However, individuals and company that wanted to, have a choice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I await your "solution" for websites which host both pornographic and non-pornographic content, but by far predominantly non-pornographic content.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See, all along I thought you were proposing a server-side approach, which is delusional if technically feasible. The approach you're proposing is not technically feasible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, it would have to be on the IP level because otherwise people would circumvent the "filtering" just by typing in the appropriate IP . . . but then you've got hosting companies who put large numbers of sites on one IP! Suddenly those sites become inaccessible when one is pornographic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am able to get the protection I am looking for without infringing on anyone else's choices.
Or, you could just control which content you request and not bother anyone else about it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:There is a legal definition for pornography and for obscenity. They already exist.
And a fine definition it is. All you do is take the work, and try to determine:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
That leaves -- as it should -- an amazing amount of wiggle room. It still boils down to "It depends."
I'd still like to know the ruling on sites with explicit content that aren't commerical pornography sites.
Museums. Written erotica sites. Rape crisis sites. Sex ed sites. Mainstream photographers who include nudes in their portfolios. Laurell K. Hamilton's site, for that matter, especially if she posts excerpts .
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>What? Why do you have to parent your child at all? Why don't we pass legislation making everyone else in the world parent your child? That's the most ludicrous question I've heard in this forum maybe ever.
So why they have laws against children smoking, drinking or using drugs? If it is so easy to simply be a parent, why are those substances regulated?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>> Why not stop arguing technical crap and just tell the truth, "This is going to make it harder/more expensive for ME to get pornography and is therefore evil."
I am not sure that it will cost more at all to get either "channel".
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>So you're expecting there to be a central database of whether or not every single website in the world is pornographic, and for ISPs to redirect (at the IP level) traffic on websites which are deemed pornographic to differing ports for certain customers?
Let's say only the US is interested in CP80, no other country. Porn sites in the US have to make the decision for themselves-there would be a transition period. Once the transition period is over, they can be legal accountable for pushing porn over port 80.
A porn company could have a presence on port 80, but it would have to be a cleaned-up version. Everything else would exist on another port--as determined by law.
If a porn site wanted to push the limit, they run the risk of litigation. If they win, they push the limit of what can exist on port 80. If they loose, well I would imagine most legitimate porn business just would run the risk.
They still have as much access to consenting adult customers as before. Just not to non-consenting adults or children.
Now an end user in the US could subscribe to either channel, both or use a standard Internet connection. If they subscribe to the non-pornographic channel, it is fairly porn-free compared to where the Internet is today. Furthermore, only those people who chose the porn-free channel would be blocked from accessing IP addresses in non-conforming countries.
The solution sits at the ISP. So an individual, parent or employer doesn't have to spend time, money or resources trying to manage his own content filtering, whitelist, proxy settings, etc. It's just on or off.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am sure it will raise the costs of providing internet connectivity. The question is, who will pay the extra cost. The likely answer: everyone who uses the internet.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>How about if they created a "G" channel for people who are unable or unwilling to deal with a less restricted internet. Access to publish on that channel would be strictly controlled and no content deemed unsuitable for children would be allowed. It wouldn't restrict anyone's freedom to publish on the "real" internet and it would provide a "safe" place for those who are unable to adequately filter content themselves.
We actually look at this and still consider it a possiblity, but you have the same problems. Who controls what goes where. There would still need to be laws in place. And even if the US passed legislation that restricted porn, etc. from being published on the G channel, how do you prevent foriegners from pushing porn onto the channel.
As we approached the solution, we discovered where one would require fewer companies from retooling their servers but a greater battle of acceptance, the G channel approach was the opposite.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm rather pleased that what you're suggesting is not going to happen. At least, not unless technology changes rapidly in a very odd direction.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>myarro, you mentioned earlier that a parent has no control over a curious child. This to me shows a considerable amount of ignorance on your part. I think you are forgetting that a child, regardless of parents, age, sex, upbringing or education, is still a human being, capable of making decisions, having opinions and acting on their impulses.
All I am suggesting is that if you took two children and one had access to all the vices he could desire and the other did not, there would be a greater chance of the child with access to the vices of having those vices adversely affect him--and more importantly adversely affect him before he had a chance--as an adult--to make a decision for himself. For example, I have a niece today that is a chain smoker because she picked up the habit at 14. Even though her mother doesn't smoke, her father doesn't smoke and both forbade smoking.
Now, preventing access to vices doesn't guarantee a child won't find it. But it increases the chance that a child will grow up to adulthood and then make a decision that suits him or her.
>>No matter how good a parent you are, a child's actions are his/her responsibility and completely out of your control.
Yes an no. Ultimately everyone grows up--and I mean that they start to take control over their own lives; however, you are what you eat. If you allow someone to ingest garbage into their system, they will become a result of that garbage.
>>The freedoms that people like Locke, Mill, and Jefferson talked about are freedoms that everyone share. They aren't freedoms that we acquire when we gain enough wisdom in life to make good decisions, they are ours whether we want them or not.
Correct. But once a child becomes an addict of a substance or has had their behavioral patterns changed because of exposure to something, they have lost part of that freedom. And when they become an adult, it is harder for them to exercise that freedom.
>>As a parent, I think that the best you can do is set a good example on how to live responsibly and honorably, and then hope that enough of it sinks in.
Agreed. But if I found my kid with some crystal meth, I sure wouldn't hope that he "figures that one out too," because he never saw me smoking.
Children and teens rarely have the wisdom of an adult, and as such their decisions may not be as smart or as good, but they can still make them. No amount af legislation, argument or regulation is going to change that.
I understand what you are saying and agree. Children need to learn how to make good decisions, and not always have someone make the decision for them--or you end up with a society of robots. But there are some substances and materials that can be so harmfuland dangerous it becomes a compelling interest of a government to do something about it.
That's why alcohol, tobacco and drugs are regulated. And pornography in the real world. We are just trying to apply those same standards to the Internet.
>>Creating two channels for would further define adults as "responsible" and all children as "irresponsible" as well as "immature." In a very general sense, this may be true, but consider some of the "adults" you've been around in your life. Exactly how different are we, aside from having a larger database of memories, from a teenager, or a child for that matter?
Agreed. Some adults act like kids and vice versa. I suppose one of the more important defining factors is the law, for better or worse.
>>So I just have to ask, what difference is there?
The law is the difference. I agree that I have meet plenty of minors that were far more mature than some adults and some adults that were completely irresponsible. But the law defines who is an adult and who isn't.
However, event he law bends. Kids can emmancipate themselves from their parents or be tried as adults for particularly violent crimes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
myarro, can you explain to me why your "solution" -- especially with all the conditions you've applied to it by this point -- is superior to a TLD filter?
The technical limitation of your port solution -- that, for example, it would be impossible to create a truly "G" (i.e. whitelisted) port, as users could always just broadcast on whatever port they wanted until they were caught -- would not apply to a TLD, and would especially not apply to a dynamic whitelist.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You still haven't addressed my critiques which point out how your solution is completely infeasible in a technical sense.
In fact, you seem to keep switching which solution you're proposing. In order for the internet to "remain the same" for people who don't subscribe, its necessary that all ports be available and that internet sites be almost entirely on port 80 (some sites redirect to other ports for various purposes, typically related to multiple purposes at play).
Yet above you again talk about porn sites switching which port they serve on. If you have people do this, it is infeasible technically to provide a "normal" internet experience for those not interested in your approach.
Which is it?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>myarro, can you explain to me why your "solution" -- especially with all the conditions you've applied to it by this point -- is superior to a TLD filter?
The actually implementation of a TLD or Port to categorize content is similar. We think that the technology required to check a packet and see if it were coming from a different port vs. a .xxx domian would be more efficient.
Either way, an initiative/solution would still need to exist at the ISP (larger businesses are their own ISP to their employees), have laws in place to enforce its use, deal with foriegn web sites and get buy in by the public at large.
And unfortunately, because .xxx failed to approach these additional problems, it has cast doubt and uncertainty for all TLDs as to whether or not they could be effective.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
>>In fact, you seem to keep switching which solution you're proposing. In order for the internet to "remain the same" for people who don't subscribe, its necessary that all ports be available and that internet sites be almost entirely on port 80 (some sites redirect to other ports for various purposes, typically related to multiple purposes at play).
For example: example-of-a-porn-site.com would be on port 80. The site would be porn-free per the laws. If I had a standard Internet or the porn-free connection, I could view that site.
The ## us the port number that law requires pornographic content to use.
If I have a standard connection, I am still able to follow that link. If, however, I have a porn-free link, that port number is blocked at the ISP. I cannot access it.
If I had both the porn-free channel and porn channel, I could access the link.
>>Yet above you again talk about porn sites switching which port they serve on. If you have people do this, it is infeasible technically to provide a "normal" internet experience for those not interested in your approach.
The porn sites could configure their webserves to publish non-pornographic content on 80 and pornographic content on port ##.
Which is it?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am not someone who likes porn or looks for it, in fact I try to avoid it, and I have stumbled across banner ads that not only advertised for porn channels but contained extremely explicit imagery.
A child searching for infomration for a school report could easily stumble across the same thing and it would have nothing to do with my abilities as a parent. They wouldn't even have to click on the ad or go to the site to see something disturbing, it's in the advertisement itself.
That's the kind of thing I'd like to see stopped - I think every adult site should have a safe front page, that clearly tells anyone who sees that page exactly what it is, and all advertising banners that are offsite should also be safe for viewing. By safe I mean they shouldn't contain anything that wouldn't be publishable on the front page of a newspaper that any child would see. Heck that goes not just for sex, but for violent imagery as well.
I actively parent my children. I do control their internet access, and they must get permission from me before logging onto the computer or accessing the internet - they do not know my passwords and they can't get on the internet without my help. But I will let my 12 year old surf if she's looking for info for a school project and I'm always afraid of what she might stumble onto. Yes, I've talked about it with her, yes she knows what sex is and yes she knows there is content on the internet that is inappropriate and that she is to get me if she sees anything disturbing. But I do not sit over her shoulder watching every site she goes to. And I don't want to have to do that in order to protect her.
I don't care how it's done, whether it's a G channel or an R channel, I really could care less. I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.
As for email that is the main problem area and because of the massive amounts of adult-content spam I don't allow my kids to have email addresses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.
Who are you willing to let decide what constitutes "explicit," Belle?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually she already mentioned that - "anything that wouldn't be publishable on the front page of a newspaper that any child would see." Those decisions are already made by every newspaper in the world, although they can have differing standards.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I probably seem like I'm flip-flopping, but I'm really not.
-- I have no problem whatsoever with easily-available pornography, and I think it should be readibly accessible for adults who want it.
-- I think sites that may or may not be considered pornography, depending on the viewpoint of the person considering it, would bear the brunt of any anti-porn regulations and I am highly suspicious of anything that would act to define such sites with too-general terms.
-- I have no problem with the restriction of explicit nudity or sexual descriptions in ads appearing on search engines, particularly those that advertise themselves as popular and useful for everyone, i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc. But I think that those sites should make those decisions themselves -- and I note that both Google and Yahoo seem to be moving towards text-only ads over banners these days, anyway.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613: [QUOTE]
1) There is nothing to stop anyone from serving porn on port 80
2) If I were a kid looking for porn, but my ISP was blocking the porn port, I could access it through a proxy that had access to the port and was redirecting to me on port 80. The software to do this is already widely available for other purposes.
1). That's the legislative part. Publish porn over 80 and face civil and possible criminal charges.
2). That proxy would be held responsible for being a publisher of porn, by proxy, on port 80.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I just don't want my kids exposed accidentally to things that could be disturbing like explicit sexual or explicitly violent imagery.
Who are you willing to let decide what constitutes "explicit," Belle?
Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
myarro: as anyone can set up a generic proxy, I'd love to see you try to enforce that. Moreso, I'd love it when the supreme court struck down the part trying to make proxies responsible for the choices of the people using them.
Of course, the supreme court would likely strike down the attempt to legislate port 80 as well (freedom of speech and the press, combined with how the judiciary has chosen to interpret internet sites and computing in precedent, would smack the notion down right quick).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
myarro, I don't think you quite understand the difference between something centralized like products made by businesses and something as decentralized as what you propose.
Not only that, but you haven't thought out the social consequences, even if what you were proposing were technically feasible. Large swathes of sites which occasionally host potentially questionable content would switch over to the "dirty port". Sites that offered good, non-pornographic public information, like on breast exams and birth control, would switch over because there would be people suing them otherwise. Many huge content-hosting sites would switch just to avoid having to audit all their content, adding another significant cost to already strapped budgets. A fair number of sites would switch out of protest. Eventually, the internet would pretty much all be on the "dirty port".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.
Hm. Perhaps you are unaware of the existence of local decency laws?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:1)
2). That proxy would be held responsible for being a publisher of porn, by proxy, on port 80.
Only if the publisher or proxy is in the US. Anyone in any other country can and will do what they want.
Correct. But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.
quote:
quote:Along with Chris' post, decisions about what is or is not pornography are made in all media every day: television, cable channels, books, radio, magazines, live performances, packaging, etc. and newspapers.
The decisions made every day by the media have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.[/qb]
Care to elaborate on this?
quote:There is no central authority that tells them what is and isn't pornography; All they have is the FCC to fine them after the fact if they cross the line.
Yes and no. The FCC fined Janet Jackson for her half-time show stunt (I think it was $550000). But when a adult gives pornographic material to a minor, that is a criminal offense.
quote:What you are proposing is a barrier for entry for would-be publishers. That barrier must by definition be administered by some central authority. Therefore, someone must decide. [/qb]
Actually there is no barrier. The publisher needs to decide for himself where his content should exist. If he is wrong, he will face the consequences of his decision.
Maybe, similar to the Fax law, an illegal post of material on the wrong port costs $500 per person who stumbled upon it. Cleaned up the Fax spam quick enough (for those of you who can remember that)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.
But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Maybe, similar to the Fax law, an illegal post of material on the wrong port costs $500 per person who stumbled upon it. Cleaned up the Fax spam quick enough (for those of you who can remember that)
Which perfectly illustrates the difference here. No one calls up your browser and splashes porn on it. Ultimately, you have to request the porn from your browser. Granted, you can be tricked into doing just that, but legitimate publishers aren't forcing you to view anything. "Fax spammers" were doing exactly the opposite.
It's the difference between a 1(900) sex line and a pervert calling you at home. One of them is a legitimate business, the other is a crime.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.
But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
Exactly. And, as adam613 said, "It's a lot easier to let people in than keep them out."
I identify as pro-porn. I think most of it is crap, but I think the good stuff is important and enriches life. I'm also all in favor of people who want to opt out of a given sphere going ahead and opting out on their own. Makes more sense to set up a regulated channel which could be subscribed to by those who want it than to try to keep people out. More feasible, certainly.
Edit: And, uh, what KarlEd said. *grin
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But if I am a CP80 user, they will also have their IP blocked. I won't be able to access them and they cannot access me.
But what's the upside here? People who are so desperate to never ever see porn that they would, for example, voluntarily sacrifice their own ability to ever visit any site hosted in a foreign country are going to be people who could get by with a whitelist.
That is a choice that each individual must make. Not afraid of all the world has to offer? Get a standard connection. Want to be more conservative? Get a CP80 connection--with all its limitations.
But at least there is a choice on the table.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a choice on the table now. Don't go to sites with porn. If a site displays porn, don't go there again.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:No one calls up your browser and splashes porn on it.
They do. And you point it out yourself...
quote:Granted, you can be tricked into doing just that, but legitimate publishers aren't forcing you to view anything.
Except that legitimate publishers are using some of the same tricks and traps to force images onto your browser.
[QUOTE]It's the difference between a 1(900) sex line and a pervert calling you at home. One of them is a legitimate business, the other is a crime. [QUOTE]
Correct. But just recently, a large porn publisher did a completely unsolicited snail mailing advertisement for their magazine. So don't think that legitimate business are above tricks.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I still don't see why opting-in to a preset whitewash list is a less preferable choice to what you are proposing, myarro. Not trying to yank your chain -- honest! -- but I just don't get it.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There's a choice on the table now. Don't go to sites with porn. If a site displays porn, don't go there again.
That's fine. But what do you do about misrepresented links, ads, popup traps, etc. How do you avoid those when you can't see them coming.
If I do my very best to avoid porn, and then am lead to a hijacked domain that redirects to porn site that pops a couple a dozen porn windows open, have not my rights to free speech been attacked?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Do you have a pop-up blocker, myarro? They are quite useful.
I've set up my computer to only go where I tell it to go. Often I turn off images, and I manually open the ones I want to see. It's a small price to pay for my own piece of mind, and I like the low-tech, streamlined approach. *smile
Edited to add: I'm pretty choosy about where I spend my time on the net. I just don't have a lot of time to waste, you know?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them. But I don't see how that has anything to do with your right to free speech.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them.
I get surly when other people give orders to my machine. Luckily current technology is sophisticated enough that I don't have to give up that control.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I still don't see why opting-in to a preset whitewash list is a less preferable choice to what you are proposing, myarro. Not trying to yank your chain -- honest! -- but I just don't get it.
Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.
Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.
And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Do you have a pop-up blocker, myarro? They are quite useful.
I've set up my computer to only go where I tell it to go. Often I turn off images, and I manually open the ones I want to see. It's a small price to pay for my own piece of mind, and I like the low-tech, streamlined approach. *smile
Edited to add: I'm pretty choosy about where I spend my time on the net. I just don't have a lot of time to waste, you know?
I understand that. And maybe you are willing to have to do that--but why should I have to have a pop-up blocker and turn off my images. Why should I have to impact my free speech.
Doesn't it bother you that you might be missing a pop-up that is actually useful? Or that you have to make a few more clicks to access content?
I understand it is a small thing, but it is the priniciple of the fact that you have to experience the Internet differently.
If there was a solution that allowed you to not have to have a pop-up blocker on or turn off you images--why wouldn't you want it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.
Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.
And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.
Couldn't a parent sign up for an AOL-ish whitewashed list of sites if it were offered? (i.e., the "Clean ISP" would only carry preregistered sites)
How could that be worked around easier than what you propose?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The whole porn issue aside, I have no idea how people function without pop-up blockers. No site should be able to open a couple dozen windows on you computer, period, because you shouldn't let them.
I get surly when other people give orders to my machine. Luckily current technology is sophisticated enough that I don't have to give up that control.
Because, people have the right to say anything under the protection of the law. And people also have the right to determine whehter or not they want to listen to it. Both are examples of free speech.
When someone hijacks my system and forces me to see something I didn't want to see, that violates my free speech.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Have you ever seen a pop-up that was actually useful, just out of curiousity?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.
Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.
And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.
Couldn't a parent sign up for an AOL-ish whitewashed list of sites if it were offered? (i.e., the "Clean ISP" would only carry preregistered sites)
How could that be worked around easier than what you propose?
It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder. The Channel aspect of CP80 is only one element of the whole solution.
You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
You have to control proxy servers.
And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I understand that. And maybe you are willing to have to do that--but why should I have to have a pop-up blocker and turn off my images. Why should I have to impact my free speech.
Because you don't want to see it? I mean, that's the point, right? When you get down to it, the point is to avoid what you don't want to see.
Simple solution. Works great for me.
quote:Doesn't it bother you that you might be missing a pop-up that is actually useful? Or that you have to make a few more clicks to access content?
Nope. Never saw a popup that was actually useful to me, and I'm a total control freak. I hate having things shoved under my nose that I don't want. If I don't ask for it, I don't want it.
quote:I understand it is a small thing, but it is the priniciple of the fact that you have to experience the Internet differently.
I can't parse this.
quote:If there was a solution that allowed you to not have to have a pop-up blocker on or turn off you images--why wouldn't you want it?
Because I'm a total control freak. *grin
The only way I can really control the content of what I see is to do what I do. And it matters enough to me that it makes me happy to do it.
If it were a matter of relying on other people to regulate the content for me, I'd OCD on making sure they were doing their jobs, and that the laws were worded just right, and that the appropriate fines were levied -- nah, too much work, and not enough control.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Have you ever seen a pop-up that was actually useful, just out of curiousity?
Yes actually. It was a smart use of context sensitive advertisment. I was looking for computer components on a random site and the pop up was for a site selling discount parts. It worked for me--but that was an exception.
However, when there is value within a context, I doubt anyone would be so opposed to them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's fine. But what do you do about misrepresented links, ads, popup traps, etc. How do you avoid those when you can't see them coming.
If you can't manage your web browsing better, I have little sympathy.
quote:If I do my very best to avoid porn, and then am lead to a hijacked domain that redirects to porn site that pops a couple a dozen porn windows open, have not my rights to free speech been attacked?
No. Absolutely not. It's possible some other rights have been violated, but not your free speech rights. Just like your free speech rights aren't violated when you see something you don't like on television.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Because you don't want to see it? I mean, that's the point, right? When you get down to it, the point is to avoid what you don't want to see.
So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
quote:The only way I can really control the content of what I see is to do what I do. And it matters enough to me that it makes me happy to do it.
If it were a matter of relying on other people to regulate the content for me, I'd OCD on making sure they were doing their jobs, and that the laws were worded just right, and that the appropriate fines were levied -- nah, too much work, and not enough control.
But it has been done before and can be done again. But it does take people talking about--like in this group--and wanting to do something about it.
So I do appreciate your comments.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder.
Why? what makes that harder? (I honestly don't get it. )
quote:You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
I don't get this, either. If the foreign sites were unacceptable, they wouldn't be placed on the list of what my "Clean ISP" would carry. In fact, the "Clean ISP" could reference only cached sites, so there would be an extra level control for those that want it that way.
quote:You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
Well, sure. So we cache some major .gov sites, some recipe sites, some games sites (child-friendly), etc., and the kids can pick and choose from the info already cached.
quote:You have to control proxy servers.
Why? (honest question -- I promise! )
quote:And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet.
Do you have a cite? (Just curious, and if it isn't handy, no biggie.)
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:No. Absolutely not. It's possible some other rights have been violated, but not your free speech rights. Just like your free speech rights aren't violated when you see something you don't like on television. [/QB]
Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
If by "public" you mean "open to the public," then, yes, they can be.
If by "public" you mean "a government owned building in which government business is conducted," then some displays of the 10 commandments are permitted, some aren't. See recent court decisions for guidance.
BUT, even a cursory examination shows this to be an unrelated issue. Government endorsement of religion is different than private speech.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That is a choice that each individual must make. Not afraid of all the world has to offer? Get a standard connection. Want to be more conservative? Get a CP80 connection--with all its limitations.
But at least there is a choice on the table.
*blink* But if you want to do this TODAY, there are ISPs out there which offer whitelisted solutions -- AND free software packages which do the same thing.
Your port solution doesn't actually add any real functionality, and has the added wrinkle of requiring legislative intervention.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
CT might not think it's a biggie, but I do. I think the majority of porn consumed on the internet requires a credit card number, and most kids age 11 - 17 don't have one. If they steal their parent's and use it, that shouldn't last more than one month, which would make it hard for them to be the largest consumers of internet porn.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
Well, no. I'm not offended by seeing the 10 Commandments.
quote:But it has been done before and can be done again. But it does take people talking about--like in this group--and wanting to do something about it.
Ah, gracious. You see, I've never seen something done like that that didn't need to be done and redone ad infinatum. It never seems to stick, it always seems to need constant fiddling.
quote:So I do appreciate your comments.
I appreciate yours, too! I'm a total technophobe, and you have been very patient at explaining things. Thank you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of free speech issues. She wasn't fined because she violated someone's free speech. (In fact, she wasn't fined at all, the broadcasters were.)
The broadcasters were fined because they violated FCC decency rules, which are justified by the limited availability and government control of the broadcast spectrum.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder.
Why? what makes that harder? (I honestly don't get it. )
for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
quote:You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
I don't get this, either. If the foreign sites were unacceptable, they wouldn't be placed on the list of what my "Clean ISP" would carry. In fact, the "Clean ISP" could reference only cached sites, so there would be an extra level control for those that want it that way.
This is along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
Well, sure. So we cache some major .gov sites, some recipe sites, some games sites (child-friendly), etc., and the kids can pick and choose from the info already cached.
Again, along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:You have to control proxy servers.
Why? (honest question -- I promise! )
A proxy server can be used to access any other site. So although playboy.com is blocked a proxy could access its content and then display it to you.
quote:And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet. Do you have a cite? (Just curious, and if it isn't handy, no biggie.)
Although I have seen it quoted as 11 elsewhere.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: CT might not think it's a biggie, but I do. I think the majority of porn consumed on the internet requires a credit card number, and most kids age 11 - 17 don't have one. If they steal their parent's and use it, that shouldn't last more than one month, which would make it hard for them to be the largest consumers of internet porn.
Check the link above.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote: Your port solution doesn't actually add any real functionality, and has the added wrinkle of requiring legislative intervention. [/QB]
Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of free speech issues. She wasn't fined because she violated someone's free speech. (In fact, she wasn't fined at all, the broadcasters were.)
The broadcasters were fined because they violated FCC decency rules, which are justified by the limited availability and government control of the broadcast spectrum.
She actually did. I just don't think anyone sued here.
And besides, I have had people smarter than me explain that free speech works both ways. The right under law to say what you feel--and the right under law to listen to what you want to.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
This is why ISP-level whitelisting seems preferable to me. Then anything that gets plugged in at that house will access the same content. And, as TomD said, this is already being offered at many local ISPs. (what am I missing here? )
quote:This is along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:Again, along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
Then how does it differ from what I am suggesting? (Remember, you have to treat me like I'm dumb, because about this stuff, I surely am.)
quote:A proxy server can be used to access any other site. So although playboy.com is blocked a proxy could access its content and then display it to you.
Wait -- if the sites are cached, how does a proxy sneak in new info? Granted, this would mean limiting which parts of the internet you could access, but if it's important, then it's worth it.
Jeez Louise, how did they come up with that number?
I'm a total control freak about studies, too. If I can't see it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it doesn't deserve my attention. And for the ones that make the cut, I go over any important ones with a fine-toothed comb, anyway.
*grin
Edit: In God we trust; all others, we virus scan.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She actually did. I just don't think anyone sued here.
If you are in a public park and don't like something someone is saying, your only recourse is to leave, barring a few very specific exceptions. You have no right to not listen if you insist on staying in the park.
The Janet Jackson fines were not issued because viewers' free speech rights were violated.
If you wish to be an effective advocate for your cause, you would do well to learn the basics of the first amendment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
Oh, good grief, myarro, you are so trusting! I assume that the legislation and enforcement would never totally keep up with those who want to shove things under my nose. That's why I do the low-tech and reliable stuff like turn off images and load them manually.
I'm pretty sure most people out there are going to find a way to dodge the law, at least for awhile. I need to hang around you and pick up some of the idealism. *smile
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
Without the parent's account information, including password, set up on the friend's laptop I don't really think this would work the way you seem to think it would. At least, it wouldn't at my house with my ISP.
And I appreciate the link. Without more information on the study, I don't really think it proves anything, but it's nice to know where you got the numbers from. I especially like this part:
quote:Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., the chief sponsor of the Democrats' bill and a mother of 9-year-old twins, concedes the bill won't solve the problem and says anything government can do is secondary.
"Parents," says Lincoln, "are without a doubt the best line of defense for their children in trying to make sure they monitor what their children are watching and participating in."
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote: If you are in a public park and don't like something someone is saying, your only recourse is to leave, barring a few very specific exceptions. You have no right to not listen if you insist on staying in the park.
Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
By the way, just so we're clear: I like porn. That is, I like to see the porn I like to see, not the porn someone else wants to shove under my nose. Even if they have exquisite taste -- remember, I'm a total control freak.
If someone were to want to share some porn they found to be up to my standards, well, they would first have to cultivate a longterm relationship with me. (At least 5 years. I take my private intimacies seriously.)
Then I would suggest a tentative outreach, say, along the lines of inviting me to a play in Chicago, and "happening by" an exhibit at the Art Institute which touched on these themes indirectly. A hesitant conversational topic could then be broached, and we could return to discuss the subject more thoroughly in another month or two. Perhaps over tea.
That would be the civilized way to share such pleasantries. Not of this pop-up stuff. So caddish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Even assuming we grant this, it's worth noting that the legislative element of your proposal is in fact the key element of your proposal, and sadly the weakest part. We have so far failed to demand accountability of pretty much anyone on the Internet.
If you're serious about this, proposing a non-anonymous Internet is in fact a better suggestion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Added for clarity: "Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place. "
Not if you wish to connect it to the public internet. Information superhighway, electronic town square. . . going on the internet you are making the choice to leave the privacy of your computer and connect to public content, including some that you may find objectionable. Luckily, there are some great solutions available for people who wish to limit and restrict their own internet experience. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place.
You click on a link, you've decided to go to that site. If you don't want to see porn, stay at sites you are sure won't have it.
This can be done fairly easily with, say, a whitelist.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A non-anonymous Internet with ready access to tea and crumpets.
No, seriously.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Even filtering that is backed by law is going to be playing catch-up, for two reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread:
1) Feasibility. A law that placed significant filtering requirements on ISPs would likely not pass. If it did pass, the courts would not uphold it. And if the courts did uphold it, ISPs would either ignore it or go out of business due to the impossibility of implementation.
2) Jurisdiction. A law passed in the US only applies to content providers and ISPs in the US. Anyone outside the US can still publish anything they want, and anyone in the US can access it.
1). CP80 would not hold ISPs accountable. They would only require them to offer a choice--just like cable tv.
2). And as I have stated as many times as you have poised the question, US law does not have to reach beyond its jurisdiction. ONLY those people who subscribe to a CP80 solution would have the IP address of non-compliant content providers/countries blocked.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have shown CT porn and I haven't known her anywhere near 5 years. I am so abashed. And there wasn't even any tea involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If someone were to want to share some porn they found to be up to my standards, well, they would first have to cultivate a longterm relationship with me. (At least 5 years. I take my private intimacies seriously.)
Whew. *wipes brow* I'm in under the wire.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
ElJay, you know you get special dispensations. That's just the way you are. We packed extra space-warp time into the henna party. (Must've been something to do with the Turkish Delight.)
Well, Tom, I guess it's about time, then. *grin
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Added for clarity: "Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place. "
Not if you wish to connect it to the public internet. Information superhighway, electronic town square. . . going on the internet you are making the choice to leave the privacy of your computer and connect to public content, including some that you may find objectionable. Luckily, there are some great solutions available for people who wish to limit and restrict their own internet experience.
So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
I may connect to an enourmous public network, but I am still deciding and choosing what I want to see. You don't have the right to push somehting on me.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place.
You click on a link, you've decided to go to that site. If you don't want to see porn, stay at sites you are sure won't have it.
This can be done fairly easily with, say, a whitelist.
Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
If you dial a phone number you see in a magazine, you might get porn if that's what the phone number connects to.
By taking a smidgeon of care, you cannot be "hijacked." If you go to only sites you know and trust, you won't see porn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
if you make your own whitelist, then it will work. What is the problem?
Accountability is from the provider YOU choose to provide a white list. Sue them or choose another provider if it doesn't work.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
Well, yeah, if you're calling a party line free-for-all. If you are just calling one specific person, then, no -- at least it seems to me. That's why a whitelist would make sense, no?
quote:I may connect to an enourmous public network, but I am still deciding and choosing what I want to see. You don't have the right to push somehting on me.
I fervently hope you find a solution which allows you to restrict in full what you yourself will see, myarro. I'm not being facetious -- feeling used and threatened is an awful feeling.
I think you'll find that there are excellent options out there already, if you look. All the best.
(going out for work)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This is a fascinating discussion. I find myself wondering if myarro knows as much about some of the people he's talking to as the rest of spectators do...
There are several highly qualified IT admins and so forth here. I don't speak that language personally, but I'd bet that Tom D and fugu know what they are talking about. Just from experience, from the help they have given other people here.
You've also been arguing law with at least one attorney, and juvenile statistics with a pediatrician whose main focus is research, not patient care (unless I am mistaken).
I am not knowledgable in any of these areas, but many of these people I have met personally, and I know they aren't just internet wannabes manufacturing credentials for forum cache.
But I believe you have a system that you believe in, and I'm glad to see you remaining so pleasant about it all.
And I'm still listening. Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
If you dial a phone number you see in a magazine, you might get porn if that's what the phone number connects to.
By taking a smidgeon of care, you cannot be "hijacked." If you go to only sites you know and trust, you won't see porn.
So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by myarro: So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
1. When I place a phone call I know who I am calling, and am calling only that person. When you surf the web, you can choose to know what sites you visit and visit only those sites. As has been mentioned several times, pop-up blockers exist and work. No one can hijack your internet usage if you take easily available percautions. If I start dialing random numbers and happen to get an obscene caller, I'll hang up. If you're clicking random links and you get a porn site, hit the back button.
2. By connecting myself to the public phone network, I open myself up for telemarkers, who can call and try to sell me something, yes. I'm sure you'll mention the do not call list, but companies with an existing relationship with me can still call and try to sell me something. Just like companies who's websites I visit can place ads trying to sell me something.
3. I can choose to have an unlisted number. You can choose to use parental controls on your computer.
4. Even if you did manage to hijack my phone call in progress, you can't make me give you my credit card number, so no, you can't sell me something against my will.
5. To take the comparison to kids, I happen to work for the phone company, and deal regularly with peole who's kids have called 900 numbers without their knowledge/permission. So, just like the internet, if kids try hard enough they can use the phone to access content their parents don't want them too. Are you going to cancel your phone line? Or are you going take responsibility for parenting your children?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
if you make your own whitelist, then it will work. What is the problem?
Accountability is from the provider YOU choose to provide a white list. Sue them or choose another provider if it doesn't work.
Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
Whitelist failed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
I think you mean, "what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the government force providers to categorize the Internet for you into sites you can trust and not trust?"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
(Control! Of course.
With the former, you are in control. With the latter, you still have to practice CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself. *nods sharply
)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
Whitelist failed.
And if you are paying a whitelist provider, they will either catch it or you will sue them for breach of contract.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A moderately large, moderately competent could run frequent WHOIS checks to see if registration has changed for whitelisted sites. Not hard, and it could be profitable if enough people want the service.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
(Control! Of course.
With the former, you are in control. With the latter, you still have to practice CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself. *nods sharply
)
Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
I think the vigilance applies to watching elected officials to make choices that are good for the people they represent.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
Whitelist failed.
And if you are paying a whitelist provider, they will either catch it or you will sue them for breach of contract.
That contract does not exist nor will it ever because they know they cannot guarantee the whitelist will be always up to date. that is the problem.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think if the issue was you and your family not seeing porn, there wouldn't be a problem here. But for some reason, you seem to think other people aren't competetant to keep themselves and their families from seeing porn, and need your help. Otherwise, if you just want a safe place on the internet to hang out, you'd be pushing and opt-in solution instead of an opt-out solution, and we would all tell you to go ahead and enjoy yourself because it wouldn't infringe on our rights or businesses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That contract does not exist nor will it ever because they know they cannot guarantee the whitelist will be always up to date. that is the problem.
If people aren't willing to pay for such a service, then why should the government impose it?
And if they are willing to pay for such a service, then it will exist.
And the whitelist can't get out of date as far as being overinclusive with a modicum of care. Of course, sites will get added to it quite slowly, but that's a different issue.
quote:A moderately competent perl script could do this, and it wouldn't even be that large.
I'm thinking bandwidth plus the eventual ire of the whois server providers your script hits constantly might raise the cost a little bit. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
Watch it, boy. *grin You're talking to a woman who grew up on a farm and rebuilt a Chevy Cavalier from scrap parts. (Why? I still ask myself that.) I may not have had the skills and resources to manufacture my own spare parts or my own vaccines, but I do have the skills and resources to operate my own laptop effectively enough to block out the obnoxious crap. So do you.
One might be tempted to reductio to the other absurdum and ask why we don't we rely on the government wipe certain parts of our anatomies, such as our drippy noses. As for me, I'm sure they would do it wrong, and I have a thing about taking care of myself whenever feasible.
It's just the cranky control-freak in me.
quote:I think the vigilance applies to watching elected officials to make choices that are good for the people they represent.
I wish I had your energy! About certain things I am forced to practice CV, but luckily this isn't one of them. Luckily, as we have touched on before, I have the skills and resources to do this one myself. (Unlike, say, perform my own open-heart surgeries -- not that the thought hadn't crossed my mind, but I can't cut and work the bypass machine at the same time.
Did sew up my own toe, though. And did a darn sight better job than that butchering of my left index finger by some fly-by-night ER yahoo. )
Seriously, I must go. But I will be back tomorrow. It has been quite a conversation!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
You're appealing to the specialization that occurs in a free market to support your argument in favor of the government requiring every single ISP to offer a particular service?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just want to point something that I don't think has been brought up. The way most filtering works is not by image, as this is pretty much impossible. The way it works is by word. In other words, sites with certain words on them are automatically verboten. So, any forum that uses language not used in church is going to be put on the porn side.
CP 80 wants us to believe that it will be as simple as sites complying with some standard, but it is impossible to make a standard that satisfactorilly seperates the merely dirty from the shockingly perverted. For instance, some filtering software that I've used wouldn't let me bring up Hatrack at times.
Using either a private filter or a filtered ISP, it's not that hard to get the site off the list, but what happens with CP 80? If this is something that is done on a federal, or even a state level, as it almost certainly will be, the ability to get sites taken off is almost certainly going to be done through some kind of byzantine beauracracy.
The point here is that even over and above issues of free speech and technological ability, the practical application of CP 80 is almost impossible to incorporate satisfactorilly on a broad scale and will be more headache than it's worth for even the state to do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So, any forum that uses language not used in church is going to be put on the porn side.
Actually, we don't know HOW, under myarro's proposal, any given site gets identified as a porn site; for all we know, sites have to apply for membership on port 80, at which point they're personally reviewed by a Sesame Street character for appropriateness before being granted "access." (I put "access" in quotes because any site can use port 80 whenever it wants, but myarro's proposal would criminalize using port 80 without the permission of the U.S. Government.) We know he wants to prosecute sites that ARE porn sites which somehow get misidentified and remain on port 80, but major questions remain:
1) How can you recognize a porn site? 2) Who would be in charge of recognizing these sites? 3) What would you do to someone who was determined to be running a porn site on the wrong port?
These are not insignificantly difficult questions, and myarro's "solution" somehow assumes they will all be answered prior to implementing the CP80 proposal.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My contention is that number 1 is impossible to objectively define, as is pretty much implicit in the current obscenity definitions. If you can't define it, then you're virtually screwed before you even get off the ground.
So, CP 80 would seem to almost guarantee some kind of review board looking at each and every site to determine whether it is 'clean' or 'dirty'. Picture having to submit your site to a committee composed of Fred Phelps and Jack Chick and their ilk so they can subjectively make sure your site is 'clean'.... Or if that doesn't get you, how about Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt and their kin....
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote: 1) How can you recognize a porn site? 2) Who would be in charge of recognizing these sites? 3) What would you do to someone who was determined to be running a porn site on the wrong port? [/QB]
I hope you all understand that as CP80 rolls forward, it keeps finding new questions that need to be answered. That is where open discussions like this are very useful.
To your questions.
1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
2). The people who stumbled upon them and the juries who deliberated about them. But ultimately, its the publisher first deciding where to put his material. If it blurs the line--hey roll the dice.
3). That is up to the legislators to determine. There are current laws from which they could draw some conclusions.
Really, I just want some accountability.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
myarro, I have a thing about using proper pronouns. From something you've said, I've been assuming you're female. Everyone else is either assuming you're male or using "he/him" as gender neutral, but I really hate doing that/ Would you mind letting us know? In case you haven't surfed the rest of the forum at all, we really are a pretty friendly bunch, althuogh we certainly have our hot-button issues.
Anyway, to introduce myself, ElJay is my initials, for Liza Jean, and I'm a 32 year old woman living and working in the upper midwest of America. (I'm not asking you to perform a similar introduction, unless of course you want to, it just seems awfully rude for me to ask for your gender without providing some information about myself first.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision.
Two problems, as you've laid this out:
1) Unless you're actually reviewing sites as they come online, your approach is entirely reactive. In other words, someone could come online, create six hundred porn sites on port 80, reap the profits for a week, and then vanish altogether before your group got together to sue them.
2) There IS no real "current standard" for pornography in the sense that you're using the term. Really. There ISN'T. In fact, to many people here, the fact that you're proposing that one be developed is the most chilling -- and unlikely -- part of your proposal.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
*choke*
There's going to be a trial for each and every site?!?
So, some jury in BFE thinks evolution is dirty and should be porn? It's porn everywhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks the use of 'God' anywhere on a non-religious site is dirty? It's porn everwhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks some religion is offensive and corrupts minors? It's porn everywhere!
Dude. Come on. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. Why can't you just spend thirty bucks and get filtering software or go with a filtered ISP?
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] 1) Unless you're actually reviewing sites as they come online, your approach is entirely reactive. In other words, someone could come online, create six hundred porn sites on port 80, reap the profits for a week, and then vanish altogether before your group got together to sue them.[/qoute]
But to reap profits there has to be a paper trail. And if there is, they can be prosecuted. Remember, if they are outside the US/or complaint country and I am a CP80 subscriber, they are blocked to me.
[quote]2) There IS no real "current standard" for pornography in the sense that you're using the term. Really. There ISN'T. In fact, to many people here, the fact that you're proposing that one be developed is the most chilling -- and unlikely -- part of your proposal. [/QB]
There is a standard that most assuredly changes as the sensitivities of a community changes. But, something can be deemed as pornographic (legal but restricted to adults) or obscene (all together illegal).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Liza, based on what myarro's said in his profile, I think we can assume he's a teenager named Matthew (possibly living in San Antonio) who's registered a domain called ThinkAtomic (through a company called DomainsByProxy, which he's used to register all of his sites), which is ultimately meant to be a think tank/consulting group but hasn't as yet done much of anything.
The odds are also good that he purchased and registered a copy of Derek Smart's Battlecruiser 3000AD Millennium Gold Edition. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm curious what your answer is to my last question. Why is a state solution better than the private ones already available? If you've already answered somewhere, feel free to cut and paste.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ah, now I thought I checked his profile last night and didn't see an email listed. My bad. Thanks Tom!
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: 1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
*choke*
There's going to be a trial for each and every site?!?
So, some jury in BFE thinks evolution is dirty and should be porn? It's porn everywhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks the use of 'God' anywhere on a non-religious site is dirty? It's porn everwhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks some religion is offensive and corrupts minors? It's porn everywhere!
Dude. Come on. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. Why can't you just spend thirty bucks and get filtering software or go with a filtered ISP?
That is a problem.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
I am turning 30 for the 10th time in about two weeks. I do enjoy the occasional computer game, even more so with my son.
And, drum roll...
I am male.
Although, apparently give off a distinctive female vibe when posting on message boards.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just wanted to say that I think you're pretty tough for taking all these questions from people on a four page thread. I appreciate you giving us all something to think about.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'm curious what your answer is to my last question. Why is a state solution better than the private ones already available? If you've already answered somewhere, feel free to cut and paste.
Because without legislation, without accountability (and that is really what we are taking about), the Internet is a wildwest shoot out.
It is the same situation and problems that has plagued any kind of medium or social structure since the dawn of time.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* Everyone but me apparently either thought you were male from your posts or checked your profile. So unless you've encountered it elsewhere I wouldn't say that was the case. Not that it matters. Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I just wanted to say that I think you're pretty tough for taking all these questions from people on a four page thread. I appreciate you giving us all something to think about.
I appreciate the thought. But this conversation has been very beneficial.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. I've read through the thread and see that that issue has been brought up. The only response to my question that you've given is that a teenager could get by a filter in a few seconds. However, you do realize that there are plenty of filtered ISPs out there, right? There's also another, better solution, which is to use a program like Covenant Eyes that monitors internet usage, makes a log of it off the computer, and emails that usage to a given email address marking which activity looks to be porn.
Could a person still get porn undetected? Possibly. However, I submit that if that is the case and that person is willing to work so hard to actively get porn, then CP 80 isn't going to solve the problem for the technical reasons given above, and it's not going to solve the more relevant problem of personal failure of parenting that did not instill sufficient moral backbone in the kid.
Posted by myarro (Member # 8547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: O.K. I've read through the thread and see that that issue has been brought up. The only response to my question that you've given is that a teenager could get by a filter in a few seconds. However, you do realize that there are plenty of filtered ISPs out there, right? There's also another, better solution, which is to use a program like Covenant Eyes that monitors internet usage, makes a log of it off the computer, and emails that usage to a given email address marking which activity looks to be porn.
Could a person still get porn undetected? Possibly. However, I submit that if that is the case and that person is willing to work so hard to actively get porn, then CP 80 isn't going to solve the problem for the technical reasons given above, and it's not going to solve the more relevant problem of personal failure of parenting that did not instill sufficient moral backbone in the kid.
For anyone paying attention, a computer placed in a public place wiht a filtered ISP connection and with a log checking solution is the solution available today.
If nothing else, I think that is very important to get out there, and will probably add a post to that affect somewhere on our site.
My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops? When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
When there are a million times as many sites as there are today, and a billion times more pages. How am I going to find the information I want, and avoid the information I don't.
How can we make everyone accountable for there participation on the Internet? Or should we?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops? When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
When there are a million times as many sites as there are today, and a billion times more pages. How am I going to find the information I want, and avoid the information I don't.
There are two ways to approach this:
1) prevent people from putting stuff on the Internet you don't want to see
2) only look at the stuff you want to see
I submit that the first option has serious limitations that would most likely lead to restrictions on freedom. The second, on the other hand, is more likely to become possible as browser and personal agent software -- especially the latter -- improves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops?
My question is why do you want to make other people jump through hoops?
You're also elevating pornography above other types of information people might not want to be exposed to and creating an expensive infrastructure to account for this particular taste.
I can see some people not wanting their kids to get Harry Potter access, or Tolkien access, or many other things. A private whitelisting system allows for the creation of different whitelists. You're one-size-fits-all, government-enforced solution will, if it works perfectly, prevent access to one type of content that one group of people find objectionable.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to say that even without filtering, it's so rarely an issue for me that I honestly can't see the problem. The spam filtering capabilities of Yahoo mail are good enough where I haven't gotten any unwanted spam in forever. I don't get porn on my computer unless I actively seek it, really. (Porn being naked people.) Google has a filtered search option that works very well. Yes, every now and then you'll get weird search results even in the filtered Google searches, but it's pretty clear within the Google search headers what sites are what. If anyone takes 1 second to look at a link in search before they click it, they should be o.k..
Basically, I just don't agree with anyone that porn leaps out at them when they least expect it with anything like regularity. Once a year or so? O.K.
quote:
My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops?
It takes maybe...an hour, max, to get the services and setup all the software I've described above. That's it. After that, you should be able to surf the net to your heart's content without ever seeing a booby that you don't want to see.
quote: When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
Come on. The internet is the ultimate in getting what you want.
quote: How can we make everyone accountable for there participation on the Internet? Or should we?
By speaking out against what you percieve as bad ideas and modeling good character and good ideas in your own life.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Article touches on why clean port 80 is pretty much doomed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
-- but I just don't get it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)