posted
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?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
..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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> 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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other persistent problem is that this requires an easily quantifiable definition of "porn," and I have yet to hear of such a thing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
. . .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."
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
