[78735] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rachael Treu)
Tue Mar 22 11:53:14 2005
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:39:36 -0600
From: Rachael Treu <rara@navigo.com>
To: Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050322061714.H47987-100000@www.mauigateway.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:18:57AM -1000, Scott Weeks said something to the effect of:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 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.top
>
>
>
> Politician 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
--
k. rachael treu, CISSP rara@navigo.com
..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?..
(this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
