C>Net:
"Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
- ferg
:
: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines."
:
: http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
scott
:
: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines."
:
:
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and was
signed by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then?
-p
Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad?
Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review...
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:18:57AM -1000, Scott Weeks said something to the effect of:
:
: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines."
:
: http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.topPolitician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
scott
Agreed.
I'm thinking...this *might* (big, fat, bloated, grinning *might*) have
a shot if "Internet Service Provider" referred to the party offering up
subscribers to an Internet requesting user service, or if "Internet
access" described access the Internet initiated, configured, and
maintained to unwitting users' homes and businesses.
When the connection is forged the other way around, the more logical...
nay, undeniably less absurd and nonsensical prescription seems to be a
firewall, subscription-based service, local DNS black/whitelisting,
or some such other solution. If you don't know how to use those things,
ask someone who does.
Unlike other ills posed to some by connectivity, I know of no "can-porn"
legistlation or other successful "do-not-pr0n" list. I don't think that
demanding that the Internet clean up its act is going to pack much of a
punch.
your pr0n may vary,
--ra
Scott Weeks wrote:
:
: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines."
:
: http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.topPolitician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected,
and treated, as often as it should be.
:P
I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:55:21AM -0800, John Kinsella said something to the effect of:
> I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
> is in dire need of an overhaul.
>
> Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected,
> and treated, as often as it should be.I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah.
Get demented, early and often!
whee,
--ra
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
Roy Engehausen
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
does pulling the plug on the user's connection count? <g>
"your honor, we were just making sure our sinners^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers
couldn't access lecherous content that hasn't made it onto the registry!"
-p
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy said something to the effect of:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
on the adult content registry."
Isn't that demanding that an ISP provide, free of
charge, a managed firewall service?
I might be expecting too much, but wouldn't it
stand to reason that link-chasing and downloading
inherently constitute a request *to* receive content?
At the risk of sounding like a proponent for public
indecency <snicker> if Junior or Hubby or Wifey or
whomever is hoarding porn and "must be
protected/stopped/brought back into the fold", I
don't think it's really the responsibility of the
ISP to care.
Note to Utah (tm)*: the pervasion of perversion is
nigh! 
Buy a firewall and keep an eye on your
kids. Neither the schools nor the ISPs are meant to
raise them.
bah,
--ra
*UT is OK with me. The disgruntled ramblings in here
refer only to those whining to the ISPs to save them
from their own Internet connection.
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider
> may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult
> content registry."
>
> Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. Of course no
one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the
Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that
document would understand the difference between "MAY not" and "MUST NOT".
-Bill
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
on the adult content registry."Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
The question is is it required to be affordable?
"Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service
fee of $9.95/packet".
I remember at a previous job trying to bypass one of
these filters to determine how easy it would be (during the eval,
it's kinda funny to have someone come by and say "try to reach pr0n now!").
The first person to bypass it was the one that handled postmaster@*
only takes moments from a spam msg to get there..
short of having a live person (uh, isn't that called a parent?)
review the material invovled, there will always be a way to bypass
it, someone could hack some major content providers systems and serve
out nothing but content that is restricted.. i don't see much that can be
done to prevent those that truly want access to obtain it.
- jared
Bill Woodcock wrote:
> The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider
> may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult
> content registry."
> > Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
So, it is voluntary on _both_ sides, _and_
it was made into a _law_ ?
Can anyone confirm this ?
> It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
> What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done
right now. Case in point.
-Bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of:
> > It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
> What !?! Surely you Jest!Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done
right now. Case in point.-Bill
What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my
service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I
want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth
on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for
that matter.
I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured,
even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if
anything else slips through like pesky news or children's
pages or something icky.
Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to
refuse me this service? <sniff>
--ra
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:=
: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said:
: > : "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: > : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: > : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: > : and search engines."
: > :
: > : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
: > :
: > Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
:
: Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad?
: Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review...
Can ISPs get around this by declaring themselves to be private clubs?
There was a rather poorly attended NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City a
couple years ago. Between bars, er, private clubs, that required (very
cheap) memberships to get in the door, the no more than one watered
down beer on the table at a time rule, the guys who looked like secret
service agents video taping the the gay pride people (all three of
them...) outside the Temple, and the repeated "you want to rent a car? On
a Sunday?!?" responses from people in the viscinity of the closed car
rental counters, it was a cultural expeience. Regardless of the legal and
technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem
inconsistent.
Ignoring the legal and commercial questions and focusing on the technical
requirements, there are several ways they could have done this. China and
Saudi Arabia accomplish this (China for political content, and Saudi
Arabia for "porn") with national firewalls. So, if the same content were
going to be blocked for all users in Utah, and if porn sites could somehow
be prevented from operating in Utah, a monopoly transit proivder for all
Utah ISPs with a big porn blocking firewall in front of it might do the
trick. I hear it works in Saudi Arabia...
But in this case, Utah hasn't chosen to use China or Saudi Arabia as its
model, nor have they copied the first round of attempts at this sort of
thing by various US states, which tended to give ISPs the burden of
figuring out whether packets flowing through their network were
"indecent" and imposed requirements on people in other states. I suspect
this will make Utah different enough that a lot of national networks will
decide it's not worth doing business there. But for Utah-focused ISPs who
can figure out how to make a firewall or proxy server speak the same
protocol as the state-run database, this should be an opportunity to
charge higher prices in the face of reduced competition. This seems like
something that could be implemented on a per-user basis with a little bit
of policy based routing.
Is it a good idea? Certainly not. Is it legal? I hope not. But is it
so badly conceived as to be unimplementable if it ever gets to the
enforcement stage? I don't think so.
-Steve
--- snip ---
Regardless of the legal and
technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem
inconsistent.
i think i remember hearing about a municipal fast-e man and ftth deployment
in salt lake city. who needs 100meg for dictionary.com lookups? ;]
-p
According to the bill:
(3)(b)(i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider
may not charge a consumer for blocking material or providing software under
this section, except that a service provider may increase the cost to all
subscribers to the service provider's services to recover the cost of
complying with this section.
(3)(b)(ii) A service provider with fewer than 7,500 subscribers may charge a
consumer for providing software under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) if the charge
does not exceed the service provider's cost for the software.
-Richard