"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
bill that would require Internet providers to block
Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top
- ferg
Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that
did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" to a filter. Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.
Roy
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" to a filter. Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.
I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
-here-, your account is now _disabled_.
You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
:P
This is another attempt to legislate something that
can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
have worked.
* cough *
The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
in my book.
This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
that declared same sex couples living together,
instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
and incarceration.
Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Richard Irving wrote:
I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
-here-, your account is now _disabled_.You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
:P
This is another attempt to legislate something that
can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
have worked.* cough *
The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
in my book.This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
that declared same sex couples living together,
instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
and incarceration.Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex
couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine
from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just
before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the
National Association of Manufacturers.
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network
operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay
marriage.
Joine efnet and #politics if you want to talk about gay people, but
please spare us of the drama.
I would have just ignored this thread if it wasn't disguised as possibly useful.
This is the problem with nanog, its no longer useful or operational.
Most of the contributors to nanog have been wasting their time the
last xxx weeks being girly men arguing about laptops for
presentations.
I bet the blackhats are having a good time watching you bicker and
fight and not pay attention to the real issues of network operations.
Nanog Deformer
(self appointed moderator)
Nanog Deform wrote:
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network
operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay
marriage.
Actually, gay marriage wasn't mentioned.... Living together isn't
marriage, and most common law marriage statutes have long ago gone by
the boards.
The topic is ISP enforcement of local/regional/state/national "morality".
And I thought it a nice heads-up on the difficulty of technical
enforcement measures, with an example of a "blue" state where 40% of
the citizens ignore the law.... Despite some self-appointed moral
arbiters trying to send them to jail.
The Lynn Rivers Show (WEMU locally) had a nice segment today on
victimless crimes, with the heads of the Libertarian Party and NORML.
Under the Utah law, we'd have to block access to lp.org and norml.org.
Nanog Deformer
(self appointed moderator)
Somebody not observing the NANOG rules on pseudonymous posting.
Could a real moderator block this nitwit, please?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP' technology? I doubt it. Aside fromt he normal bents of Utah, I bet 'someone' is lobbying the Utah officials. Lots of money to be made, and lost.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Yo Michael!
> Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP'
technology?
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries
that pretend to do it.
RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
Though I've personally never met him, I think Eric Cartman has:
http://members.tripod.com/~JB5555/southpark/vchip.wav
http://www.moviesounds.com/sp/vchip.mp3
Eric 
Most proxy caches are jokes nowadays, anyway. In middle school, the local
district used a Microsoft Proxy server that blocked all sites except a
whitelist. When it took over 45 seconds to check a site against the
whitelist (and by that time, all but a few students knew the one and only
name and password, anyway).
Then by High School, they moved to Bess from N2H2 and realized that giving
teachers names and passwords was a mistake (it took 1 week to be as
effective as the old proxy, which still worked anyway). Then they revoked
all user accounts on the proxy servers and blocked external proxies, just in
time for Terminal Services to allow people to remote to their home PC and
browse at their leisure (no, port blocking never came to their mind, and no
one mentioed it to them).
Sincerely,
Joe Johnson
www.JoeLovesDreamweaver.com
joe@sendjoeanemail.com
P.S.: Gary, I am sure I want to use Outlook.
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
*raising hand*
Got children, y'know.
Anything other than TV-Y, TV-Y7, or TV-PG, along with the movie ratings of approximately the same stripe, require Mom or Dad to enter our four-digit PIN before the cable company will let anyone watch.
The key here is that the end-user has the ultimate choice. If Utah's law provides for end-user choice, I would have a lot less problem than if Utah's law is supposed to do only what the C|Net article says.
Of course,
"A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman..."
The key words here are "newly elected" and "Republican"** - and I think that this might be more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Surely, if Huntsman has any clue at all, he will not actually expect this law to stand, even if it is passed.
In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries
that pretend to do it.
They're not the only ones, either. Plenty (if not all) school districts do it too, including the one where my wife works.
**If you really must flame me for my opinions about the Goofy Old Party, please do so in private email to me, not on the list.
"A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman..."
The key words here are "newly elected" and
Well as long as we are projecting our ghosts and guessing, I would argue
the opposite. For one thing, his term started Jan 3 [1], while the law was
first read Jan 28 [2], which is an awfully short time for a first-time
elected official to bend a unified state congress to his will. The quotes
in the CNET article don't seem to indicate any kind of ownership either,
and I'd expect that.
From the other end of the wire, look at the votes that the bill has
enjoyed, "Nobody spoke against the bill during the committee hearing" [3],
the general electoral trend in Utah [4], the presence of the Mormon
church, the history of Utah wrt pornography law and enforcement (Hatch is
principle sponsor for the federal child porno laws that have been struck
down, and there are lots of other things going on), and I think it's
probably fair to guess that the law was presented by the legislature as
part of routine business--they probably really want to be avoid this
stuff. I'd suppose, therefore, that "way-of-life" is probably a much more
accurate descriptor for the event than suggesting that it was a stunt by a
newbie governor.
Of course, this is all outside-the-fishbowl stuff, since my limited
experience with the state is not being able to buy any booze on one
side-trip, and merely enjoying the scenery on another. But guessing at
this stuff is certainly entertaining.
For folks still reading, here's what the Deseret Morning News says [5]:
If HB260 is approved, it would require that Utah-based companies
begin rating their sites for potentially harmful materials, which
is primarily nudity or sexual activities, according to guidelines
established by the Utah Consumer Protection Services Division.At the same time, the Utah Attorney General's Office would start
developing a registry of those companies that do not rate their
sites as potentially harmful to minors, and by 2007 would allow
Internet service providers to offer that list to their customers
for filtering.The bill also appropriates $100,000 for marketing and advertising
campaigns to educate parents about the dangers of the Internet
and $50,000 to research the effectiveness of various filtering
technologies.Because the law would only apply to Utah-based companies, it
would not violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S.
Constitution, which has hampered most other Internet control
legislation, he said. Also, consumers choosing to use the
registry to block sites would be made aware of the fact that
because the registry would only contain domain names, some
innocous material may not be accessible."Consumers will be informed that they are making the choice to
block this material," he said. "They will also be told that
some information which is not harmful could be blocked."
[1] Jon Huntsman Jr. - Wikipedia.
[2] http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/status/hbillsta/hb0260s03.htm
[3] http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600113991,00.html
[4] http://historytogo.utah.gov/governors.htm
[5] http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600113991,00.html