[62832] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Sep 23 13:19:00 2003
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:18:20 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Cc: Justin Shore <listuser@numbnuts.net>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20030923121520.077a5208@209.112.4.2>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not
> bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do
> with a matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to
> get the lawyers involved :( Certainly if the company persisted, we
> would have done so. The fact that they can then go to another ISP who
> does not care and allows them to use their network is another issue.
>
Of course, it depends on the local laws, but in many locations,
pornography has a lot of restrictions and when those restrictions are
broken, it becomes a criminal matter. For example, most of my user's
have "family" accounts. This means that their email is not only theirs
but their children and grandchildren's. Even if the owner of the account
is an adult, the fact that their children are present when they read
their email means that all pornographic spam they receive is essentially
being delivered to a minor. This is especially true with misleading
subject lines where children are exposed to unwanted material before
anyone realizes it. In Oklahoma, at least, it is a criminal offense to
expose children to pornographic material.
-Jack
