dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2005-11-28 09:07:26: According to the Deseret News (via Slashdot), one Utah businessman and his non-profit organization want to pass a law limiting pornography for use only over certain ports. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

Yeah...

Preserving freedom of speech by passing laws restricting it. Welcome to New America, where you can say one thing and do another and hardly anyone notices.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

Re: Yeah...

How is it restricting it?

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

Re: Yeah...

said by DaSneaky1D:

How is it restricting it?
From the article:
want to pass a law limiting pornography for use only over certain ports.

Pornography would be restricted to particular ports. Now the government wants to fiddle with TCP/IP.

ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

1 recommendation

Re: Yeah...

I still do not see how that is LIMITING free speech. They can put anything they want on those ports.

I am guessing you are probably one of those heavy usenet user too!!
--
FWD#: 223611

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

1 edit

Re: Yeah...

said by ropeguru:

I still do not see how that is LIMITING free speech. They can put anything they want on those ports.

I am guessing you are probably one of those heavy usenet user too!!
Nah, I'm not. Limiting the place where free speech can occur limits free speech. It's like those "free speech zones" they set up for demonstrators at political events. Tell me those don't restrict speech.

Besides, the concept of TCP ports exists for technical reasons. Generally a port is associated with a specific protocol (e.g., webservers listen on port 80). Whether http traffic is pornographic or not, it's still http traffic.

While it would have the same effects on free speech, at least the idea of a domain for porn sites is less dumb than this one.

72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA

Re: Yeah...

said by vpoko:

Besides, the concept of TCP ports exists for technical reasons. Generally a port is associated with a specific protocol (e.g., webservers listen on port 80). Whether http traffic is pornographic or not, it's still http traffic.
Actually only ports 1024 and below are associated with specific protocols/services. Rest are open for free use as you see fit.
--
RIP Dimebag- August 20, 1966 to December 8th, 2004.

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

Re: Yeah...

said by 72276539:

said by vpoko:

Besides, the concept of TCP ports exists for technical reasons. Generally a port is associated with a specific protocol (e.g., webservers listen on port 80). Whether http traffic is pornographic or not, it's still http traffic.
Actually only ports 1024 and below are associated with specific protocols/services. Rest are open for free use as you see fit.
The point is that TCP/IP is a system designed to facilitate multiplexing onto a single IP pipe, it's purpose is not political.

Wills9

join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL

Re: Yeah...

So it's ok to have mail on port 110 but not porn on its own port? Wouldn't limiting mail to 110 be exactly the same as assigning a port to porn? But you don't seem to be arguing that...There is exactly no difference between mail on port 110 and porn on 6969.

It doesn't restrict the freedom of speech any more than mail being on port 110. You just now have the choice if you want to open or close that port. Do you want mail/porn or do you not want mail/porn.

It's no different than FTP being on 21 or 80 for the internet.

Seeing as you don't complain about FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTPS or anything else having it's own assigned port, yet you are complaining about porn having it's own port, I can pretty much lump you into the category of people that will only thump on the Consitution when it affects them directly.

So is that why you're complaining about porn and nothing else?
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me.
ThatsPrettyFunky

join:2001-08-28
Derwood, MD

2 recommendations

Re: Yeah...

FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTPS, PORN.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed PORN is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

That's right, PORN, unlike those other items, is not a protocol...

sahirs

join:2002-02-14
Singapore

Re: Yeah...

i like it!

printscreen

join:2003-11-01
Juana Diaz, PR
kudos:1
The argument is that FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTPS are PROTOCOLS for different purposes. Porn is not a protocol.

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
said by Wills9:

So it's ok to have mail on port 110 but not porn on its own port? Wouldn't limiting mail to 110 be exactly the same as assigning a port to porn? But you don't seem to be arguing that...There is exactly no difference between mail on port 110 and porn on 6969.

It doesn't restrict the freedom of speech any more than mail being on port 110. You just now have the choice if you want to open or close that port. Do you want mail/porn or do you not want mail/porn.

It's no different than FTP being on 21 or 80 for the internet.

Seeing as you don't complain about FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTPS or anything else having it's own assigned port, yet you are complaining about porn having it's own port, I can pretty much lump you into the category of people that will only thump on the Consitution when it affects them directly.

So is that why you're complaining about porn and nothing else?
So what about porn transported by FTP? Does it need its own port? Or porn transported by http? Porn that's emailed? Do we need to set up a whole new port numbering system (or better yet, a new protocol similar to TCP) for porn?

Heh heh, I also find it funny you're trying to attack my credibility by implying I look at porn. I might point you to my post history...

alphapointe
Don't Touch Me
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Yeah...

Heh, T&A/IP?

chuch

join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
You are kidding me, right?!

FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTPS, etc are all on their own ports because they are PROTOCOLS.

Porn, which would be delivered via HTTP, is routed on port 80 like every other web page.

If you do not understand the reasons for these PROTOCOLS to reside on their respective ports, then I suggest an education in how the Internet works.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot!

Wills9

join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL

1 edit

Re: Yeah...

So what if they are protocols? Look past the surface. Like I said, if we put spam/adware/malware on it's own port and easy to block simply by closing a certain port not a single one of you would bitch. But they aren't protocols...

Porn is something that some people don't want. So is FTP or SMTP. Some people want to filter porn out, just like HTTP in some businesses.

Why not give it it's own port. And for those of you to inflexible to look past the surface, let's make it it's own protocol too that way you'll be ok with it, lol.

If you put an ounce of thought into it, it's the only way to really filter it out completely if need be, do it easily, cheaply, and effectively. How hard would it be for browser companies, or firewall/router companies to simply put a button on their menu to filter that port?

It's easy of use security, something else you've all been screaming about...
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

Re: Yeah...

said by Wills9:

So what if they are protocols? Look past the surface. Like I said, if we put spam/adware/malware on it's own port and easy to block simply by closing a certain port not a single one of you would bitch. But they aren't protocols...

Porn is something that some people don't want. So is FTP or SMTP. Some people want to filter porn out, just like HTTP in some businesses.

Why not give it it's own port. And for those of you to inflexible to look past the surface, let's make it it's own protocol too that way you'll be ok with it, lol.
So, as I said earlier, how about a port for religious content? Some people don't want it and I want to protect my kids from the vile bigotry being spewn from so many churches.

How about a port for gun-advocacy messages?

How about a port for every message someone finds objectionable?

chuch

join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
Spoken like a true pork belly politician...

The structure of TCP/IP is to route multiple protocols (FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, etc) over a single pipe.

You want to start assigning content "port numbers", you start to cripple the function of TCP/IP. Sure, let's just do porn, next year we'll give on-line music it's own port, then we'll assign a different port to news content, then another port to...

What we end up with at this time and point is an entire infrastructure that is no longer able to "load balance" and properly forward data requests do to the fact that the entire TCP/IP structure is being altered.

There are plenty of hardware and software options out there for lazy parents to use...Reinventing the wheel is just a waste of money.

Besides, who's to say that porn sites won't just pick up and move their hosting to a different country where they are not subject to US laws...
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot!
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Why filter based on a port when you can remap ? That is just not the right way to do it. It's a lazy fix. Sure it works to block protocols. But http and other transfer protocols don't need to be specifically bound to a port. They work on others.

Filtering porn is so simple , that the people who don't do it for their kids sake makes me sick. Restrict my net use because they don't know how to properly set an option in their web browsers.

Better yet, buy a router that supports blacklisting via the used rating systems, oh wait that is to easy. Don't block any of my ports at all. And don't restrict my surfing. I prefer to do it myself thank you very much, anyway the sentiment from all over bbr is that the government can't do anything right so why trust them with this ?

Also how do you suppose we make a porn protocol ? hack http or ftp ? your points are not well grounded in reality, in a fantasy world where the world bends to the us rules, maybe, but not here in the world I know.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

Fatal Vector

join:2005-11-26

Re: Yeah...


What seems to escape everyone, is that this is what amounts to a religion based STATE government attempting to affect us all by enacting such a law only in their state, which they could then use to sue (or worse) anyone whos traffic even happens to go through their state, if they wanted to, somewhat like what Texas is doing against sony with their spyware law.

If they make it so In Utah, the rest of the internet would have to tow the line to avoid legal trouble from what amounts to a religion acting under color of Government authority. This will lead to inevitable federal challenges that will take years. Meanwhile the law is in effect and the damage, as well as the precedent is done/made.

DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
said by BosstonesOwn:

anyway the sentiment from all over bbr is that the government can't do anything right so why trust them with this ?

While I agree with most of your post ... kindly speak for yourself.
--
How can I improve my WiFi signal?
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Yeah...

I should have edited it to say the majority my bad. Most of the users here seem to think government run anything is a bad idea.

Can't say I agree with that.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

Re: Yeah...

said by BosstonesOwn:

I should have edited it to say the majority my bad. Most of the users here seem to think government run anything is a bad idea.

Can't say I agree with that.
Government run anything is a bad idea because there's too much opportunity for things to fall through the cracks (the government is slow and not well managed).

BUT, the question is really: is there a better alternative? In some cases (military, police, roads) there isn't a better alternative ( I am not turning our Haliburton-owned military over to another private company ) but if there is, we'd best use it or we'll see the same type of issues that came up during Katrina.

DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
Thanks.

-m-

click_310
Eat my shorts

join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
or route all your kids traffic through proxy1.emirates.net.ae:8080 99.99% of all porn is censored and its free...
--
Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:4
said by Wills9:

Why not give it it's own port. And for those of you to inflexible to look past the surface, let's make it it's own protocol too that way you'll be ok with it, lol.
You are, ironically, inflexible to look past the U.S. border.

What keeps a porn site from Canada or Germany from operating on the regular http protocol on port 80? No matter what US legislation decides to do with porn, there is no way that you can block porn coming in from other countries.

A simple look at Germany for instance: For obvious historical reasons, Nazism is forbidden in Germany, and so is running websites with Nazi propaganda. To escape German law, neo-Nazi's in Germany have ran sites in The Netherlands, and yes: The United States. The site in the Netherlands was eventually taken down by the provider in question after a lot of pressure from the Germans, but in the United States we ain't letting any country tell us what to write and what not to write. We are proud on our free speech.

And so, German Neo-Nazi sites can be published in the United States without any problems, and all Germans using the Internet have access to them.

And so also with porn: The US cannot change the laws of other countries and being the "owner" of the Internet actually works against this as they cannot force their policies abroad. If an international organization ran the Internet, it would be much easier to get the EU and other industrialized nations aboard for a "porn protocol", but that is definitly not going to happen with the way the Internet has been set up now.

So bring on the porn stars in lederhosen!
--
George W. Bush on Clinton going into Kosovo, 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Right.
competence

join:2004-11-24
123456
said by Wills9:

So what if they are protocols? Look past the surface. Like I said, if we put spam/adware/malware on it's own port and easy to block simply by closing a certain port not a single one of you would bitch. But they aren't protocols...

Porn is something that some people don't want. So is FTP or SMTP. Some people want to filter porn out, just like HTTP in some businesses.

Why not give it it's own port. And for those of you to inflexible to look past the surface, let's make it it's own protocol too that way you'll be ok with it, lol.

If you put an ounce of thought into it, it's the only way to really filter it out completely if need be, do it easily, cheaply, and effectively. How hard would it be for browser companies, or firewall/router companies to simply put a button on their menu to filter that port?

It's easy of use security, something else you've all been screaming about...
dude you've been looking @ the pictures on your wall too long and using you're right hand, you need some movement and action and sound

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
said by Wills9:

So what if they are protocols? Look past the surface.
Said exactly unlike an engineer.

said by Wills9:

Like I said, if we put spam/adware/malware on it's own port and easy to block simply by closing a certain port not a single one of you would bitch. But they aren't protocols...
You do know what a protocol is, right?

said by Wills9:

Porn is something that some people don't want. So is FTP or SMTP. Some people want to filter porn out, just like HTTP in some businesses.
HTTP is a request-oriented protocol. That means that porn isn't simply delivered to your system unbidden (even pop-ups/pop-unders were requested by your system). As such, people that are getting porn via HTTP "want porn".

FTP (and similar file request services) is a request-oriented protocol. Again: that means that porn isn't simply delivered to your system unbidden. As such, people that are getting porn "want porn" via FTP.

About the only protocol that isn't request-oriented is email. There already exist methods for blocking such traffic that don't rely on clueless lawmakers to pass or clueless constituents to support. Frankly, these methods are far more effective than trying to bet every global political jurisdiction to adopt some form of ill-conceived "solution".

said by Wills9:

Why not give it it's own port. And for those of you to inflexible to look past the surface, let's make it it's own protocol too that way you'll be ok with it, lol.
I'm guessing that, with the amount of clue displayed thus far, you aren't a tech person. And, no, a call-center tier 1 phone-monkey doesn't count.

said by Wills9:

If you put an ounce of thought into it, it's the only way to really filter it out completely if need be, do it easily, cheaply, and effectively. How hard would it be for browser companies, or firewall/router companies to simply put a button on their menu to filter that port?
Probably a lot less difficult than getting the entire globe to segregate content into different, arbitrary delivery channels.

said by Wills9:

It's easy of use security, something else you've all been screaming about...
Here's a quarter: go buy yourself a clue.

-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased)

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
Yes, I'm aware they're protocols. But I kind of like the idea of URLs like

porn://bigtits.com

myself. They can make a new pornoprotocol. Optimized for streaming smut!

-- Rob
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

3 edits
It matters because if you put porn on its own port, simply filtering THAT port kills all porn to an IP address (or group of addresses). In this way, things work the REVERSE of what the Utah morons want....or do you think THEY want it this way for this very reason?

I can see it now...Pat Robertson goes into the ISP business...selling CLEAN Internet...

Or how about seeing god squad picketers outside YOUR favorite ISP protesting that they DON'T filter the porn port?

OR...how about your ISP putting a port scanner on your IP address to see how much porn you download/view?

This slope gets slippery mighty fast!!!

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6

1 recommendation

said by Wills9:

So it's ok to have mail on port 110 but not porn on its own port? Wouldn't limiting mail to 110 be exactly the same as assigning a port to porn? But you don't seem to be arguing that...There is exactly no difference between mail on port 110 and porn on 6969.
Mail can run on any port it wishes. There is no law requiring mail to run on port 110, and in fact, some people do run their mail on different ports.

It's no different than FTP being on 21 or 80 for the internet.
Again, no law. My FTP server runs on port 8080.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by Wills9:

So it's ok to have mail on port 110 but not porn on its own port? Wouldn't limiting mail to 110 be exactly the same as assigning a port to porn? But you don't seem to be arguing that...There is exactly no difference between mail on port 110 and porn on 6969.

It doesn't restrict the freedom of speech any more than mail being on port 110. You just now have the choice if you want to open or close that port. Do you want mail/porn or do you not want mail/porn.
I don't care much for ports, etc... What I care about is WHO is going to decide what is porn and what isn't. Look at 18 U.S.C. 2257 - It basically defines anything that even "hints" at sexual behaviour as porn.

I don't; want my governmnet defining what is and isn't porn. It's already defined loosly as exposed no-no places and acts of sex. However, some people are going over board with 2257 and defining simply things as a hand next to a crotch as pornography. What used to be harmless is now hard core.

Sorry, but the government needs to stay out of speech issues like the constitution grants us. If people are that worried about seeing porn then they should stay off the internet, out of gas stations, etc. It's a part of life. I don't understand why some people are so hung up on sex anyway? You'd think that sex doesn't happen, it's not natural, or better yet, it's part of some religious reservations (which is a personal issue) - yet the population gets bigger and bigger. (I guess people are in the labs having babies /sarcasm)

The other thing.. kids... Hey parents! Get the computers out of your kids rooms, watch what your kids do online, stop using the internet as a baby sitter liek you've used the TV for so long and actually raise your children. Maybe there wouldn't be so many 15 year olds getting pregnant and acting like hoods. Raise your children by taking care of your responsibilities.

As a tax payer, I am sick and tired of being punished by irresponsible parents. I feel like *I* am the child and not the other way around.

I got news for people - it's NOT all about the kids these days.. it's all about irresponsble parents!

And as for your comment on port 110 for mail, 21 for ftp, 80 for internet.. those are services. What you are sticking up for is censoring types of information by port number. There is a difference. Porn is still web and it's on port 80 - period.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
said by 72276539:

Actually only ports 1024 and below are associated with specific protocols/services. Rest are open for free use as you see fit.
No they aren't:

»www.iana.org/assignments/port-nu ··· -numbers

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
said by 72276539:

said by vpoko:

Besides, the concept of TCP ports exists for technical reasons. Generally a port is associated with a specific protocol (e.g., webservers listen on port 80). Whether http traffic is pornographic or not, it's still http traffic.
Actually only ports 1024 and below are associated with specific protocols/services. Rest are open for free use as you see fit.
Uh, no... There's a whole bunch of IANA-assigned port numbers above 1024. Please see the list of registered ports for reference. Warning: the list of ports is over 100K in size.

-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased)

broadbander8
Premium
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
said by ropeguru:

I still do not see how that is LIMITING free speech. They can put anything they want on those ports.

I am guessing you are probably one of those heavy usenet user too!!
Yes, free speech zones aren't limiting free speech, right?

Wrong.

Part of free speech is being to enact that free speech ANYWHERE! This IS absolutely a limitation on that based on moral grounds, and that is a violation of the first amendment. Free speech isn't reserved for special "ports" or for special "cages," its a right and it is allowed anywhere.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:4
said by vpoko:

said by DaSneaky1D:

How is it restricting it?
From the article:
want to pass a law limiting pornography for use only over certain ports.

Pornography would be restricted to particular ports. Now the government wants to fiddle with TCP/IP.
I am all for blocking porn to certain ports and/or domains. Not that I am innocent, because both me and my wife like a good porn flick at times, and I have a nice collection of big titted women on my computer.

But it should be done at home, and not at work or elsewhere. Being a sysadmin, I would love to be able to block all porn to a different port and/or domain.

The problem is however, that it wil NEVER work. No matter how the laws in the US will be written, there is no way to block porn sites from European or other domains in the world. A website in Germany can be completely open on port 80, and besides barring the indivdual websites or barring access to the entire .de domain, there is nothing you can do about it.

You probably won't even be able to persuade CANADA to join in on this law, so all porn sites in the US will simply move to .ca
--
George W. Bush on Clinton going into Kosovo, 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Right.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

Religious losers

How about those religious losers just observe the separation of church and state. They have no right to say what is acceptable and unacceptable on port 80.

•••••••••

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Who really wants to block porn?

Why doesn't this guy start his own ISP that filters porn and market it as such?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008!
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus

Re: Who really wants to block porn?

said by pnh102:

Why doesn't this guy start his own ISP that filters porn and market it as such?
Becuase some people might still be able to look at porn... It seems like a lot of people that have a problem with porn want to completely eliminate it instead of just taking responsibility and keeping their kids and themselves away from it...
--
Support "W"
The one thing worse than idle hands is an idle mind.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Who really wants to block porn?

said by bmn:

Becuase some people might still be able to look at porn... It seems like a lot of people that have a problem with porn want to completely eliminate it instead of just taking responsibility and keeping their kids and themselves away from it...
It doesn't mean he couldn't try. There might actually be a market for porn-free Internet access. Such a solution wouldn't involve the government. You might also be surprised at how many porn sites would be more than willing to help out such an ISP filter their content. Heh... you could say the pornographers are more honorable than the tobacco industry as they want to keep their products away from kids.

Of course, such an ISP would be a "best effort" service. The most ideal way to prevent kids from looking at porn would be for the parents to get involved first.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008!

bit_junkie

join:2004-05-04
Maricopa, AZ

1 recommendation

Parenting,parenting, parenting.....

"One of the things that we're finding is that CP80 has the right sound to it," Thomson said. "It's not a technology that has to be developed; the software and the hardware pieces are in place. Now it's just a matter of getting the policy in place so we can have at least some part of the Internet that is free of the filth and free of the degradation."

call me stupid, but if your not browsing for porn are you not already going to a part of the internet that is "free of the filth and free of the degradation" ?

and if parents would watch what their kids are doing on the net(I watch mine) this would really not be an issue.
I wish some of these people would take responsibility for their kids and stop trying to get(government) someone else to do their jobs.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

Re: Parenting,parenting, parenting.....

Its not about them watching their own kids, this is their way of monitoring everyone else's kids and their parents also. I imagine it would suck to have that guy as your parent.

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Port 443

Good idea. Porn should go through port 443 so it will be secure.



Isn't "hard-core technology businessmen" an oxymoron?
dardin

join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ

all I can say is....

Yet another reason not to live in Utah, if this was to become law.

insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

1 recommendation

Who decides what pornography is?

First off to make a governing body decide what porn is, is antifreedom of speech. Second other countries aren't going to listen to any US law. And in the end it would be easier to designate a new port for clean sites rather than try to kick porn sites off of an already established port. And third even if you set say port 85 as clean, it doesn't stop anyone from using it. I think the best thing for crazy groups to do is make their own search engine that only lets you searched sites they approve the public can then choose to use it if they want.

••••

Chaoswar
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Northlake IL

1 recommendation

Just my perspective...

I consider the internet a public "place". You can't go out in public nude nor can you perform various sexual acts in public. Why should the internet be any different than any other "public" place?

How is moving sites that contain that sort of content limiting free speech? Is there a statement being made by the pornographic content? Free speech was established so the people could freely voice their opinions, not freely express their sexual provocations.

Either way, moving content to a specific available location is not going to limit access to it. If anything it will concentrate it and make it even easier to find. I agree with one point of a previous poster. Ultimately, it's the parent(s) responsibility to monitor and watch what their children are doing. Society/Government does not hold the onus of raising children... Parents do.

•••••••••

Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none

join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH

Questions

I have a couple of questions that I would like answered on this:

Number one: How is this different than forcing all of the porn sites on a .XXX TLD? Yes I know the technical differences, but why does these guys think it will work?

Number two: Port 80 is defined as http by the engineers that created the TCP/IP protocol what gives these people the right to change that?

Number three: What do they plan to do to people who run porn sites from port 80?

Number four: What the hell is a "channel" when did a port become synonymous with channel?

Number five: If the porn is just a click away from "No matter what Web site children are visiting" what sites are they going to? I can't find any links to porn on disney.com
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime

••••

rfhar
The World Sport, Played In Every Country
Premium
join:2001-03-26
Buicktown,Mi

1 recommendation

I love it...

That way I can just block those ports and not have to worry about the curiosity of my teenage grandchildren when we are not around.

•••••

asdfdfdf

@xtraport.net

Surely we can agree on this...

That people shouldn't be exposed to this material if they don't want to be. The inadvertent exposure is a legitimate issue and some mechanism needs to exist so people can protect themselves from scummy practices like porn sites set up with slight misspellings of popular site names.

I don't buy the argument many are making here that limitations on place and time(this is an attempt to replicate place in cyberspace) are an unwarranted limitation on speech.
This is an attempt to create the equivalent of a red light district on the net and to enforce opt-in, rather than opt-out.
In the real world we have similar limitations.

Whether it will work is a different matter. I certainly think a more thorough analysis of the effects of this should take place.
I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand, however, based on generic free speech arguments.

•••••

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 recommendation

What hog wash

Here we go another pundit with a feel good proposal to get more contributions to his organization. This is total bovine scatology. So this BS artist thinks Russian, German, Dutch, Japanese, and other overseas porno sources are going to go along with this; sure......
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.

•••
raccettura0

join:2002-09-28
USA

Compromise

I'll agree to this stupid idea if the following is done:
- all religious content goes on port 666.
- all political content goes on port -666.

I don't see a reason why we don't push this stuff off of port 80 while were at it. That article made good reason to get this stuff of port 80. How many religions have broken up over religion or political differences? Quite a few. And lets face it... in the US, religion and politics are one.

Yes I'm dead serious about this. I don't see why we should only do porn. There's lots of offensive religious and political sites that are about as sick as you can get (mainly encouraging hate, and other things the Bible technically preaches against, but are ignored).

Why do we stop at porn?

IMHO it's more important to outlaw hate sites that mascarade as religious sites than to protect kids from a pixilated nipple. One causes major problems. The other one causes a natural physical reaction of blood flowing to a particular orgain.

asdfdfdf

@xtraport.net

Re: Compromise

"Why do we stop at porn?"

Social norms do not and have never viewed porn as comparable to political and religious discourse. Without political discourse especially our political system would collapse. You may wish things were different, but that's the way it is.

Why do parents restrict their children eating sweets, but not restrict their children eating brussel sprouts? To a large extent because there is no likelihood that their children are going to be sneaking brussel sprouts or eating sprouts until they puke.

I doubt that there are many kids sneaking onto computers to secretly read the bible against their parents wishes, nor is my inbox cluttered with spam like "watch blonde girls worship jesus". Religious and political sites are not aggressively exploiting human appetites to trick/seduce people into going onto them.

If the porn sites had practiced self-restraint rather than in-your-face aggression coupled with trickery, there wouldn't be much support for limiting them. Granted the religious right would still be crusading on it, but it wouldn't have much traction with the rest of the public. Most of the public isn't on a crusade to eradicate porn, but they do want it and its effects kept within certain reasonable limits.

pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

porn ports?

first off, if you don't want to see pr0n then don't visit any porn sites. don't click those sexy ads, and (you shouldn't be anyway) don't click links in unknown email. period. (pretty easy one there)

on a lighter note: so since we have HTTP (port 80) HTTPS (port 443) will we now add HTTPP (port to be determined) to the mix?
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net

mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

1 recommendation

Obligatory....

But think of the children!

ReneM

join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD

Re: Obligatory....

And if that doesn't help to get it passed we can always ask Faux News to fight child pornography with it.

JeedaiKnight
0verthinking
Premium
join:2002-03-15
Portland, OR

Would be nice for admins...

For folks who want to keep this stuff off their networks, it would actually be nice. I would really like to be able to block porn across my company network, being able to just block the "porn port" would be much easier than going through some service that can make mistakes (I understand nothing is foolproof, but still.) How would it change free speech? The porn is still out there it's just availible on a categorized port.
--
www.andycatts.blogspot.com

CrazyFingers

join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

Re: Would be nice for admins...

Are you deliberately trying not to understand why this is a retarded idea?
Ok, lets pass a law that requires all web servers that serve pages containing pornography to operate on port 16969.
Now, as a network administrator, what do you do to take advantage of this new law?
Block port 16969. Ok, super, no pr0n!
Oh, wait, Bob in accounting is using a proxy service running on port 80 to look at porn. Ok, block that proxy site. He switches to another one. Now, I guess it's time to sign up for some filtering service that blocks proxy sites. There, no more pr0n! Yay!
Oh no, Jack in marketing is looking at a Norwegian porn site running on port 80. Crap, I guess you now have to sign up for a service that filters foreign porn sites.
Yay, no pr0n!
Except that Bob keeps finding proxy sites that slip through the filters, and Jack keeps finding new Danish porn sites that aren't on the filter list.
I guess it's time to reprimand them.
So, in the end, what do we have?
We have to buy a filtering solution to block proxy sites, porn sites, and we have to reprimand employees that violate our AUP.

Well, it's a good thing that porn-port law passed, it helped SO MUCH!
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...

Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA

What A Bunch Of Hot Air!

Porn is the best selling thing on the Internet. Porn and the Internet go hand-in-hand. Now these newcomers are trying to get rid of it? The Internet is an imperfect thing in an imperfect world. Show me one perfect thing in this world, and then try to make the Internet perfect.

These people obviously know nothing about the Internet. All I hear is them bitching and I hear nothing about how they are going to do it. The Internet is not TV, it doesn't have channels.

These so-called parents need to learn how to parent, or not to become a parent at all if they’re not up to the job. I’m sick of people trying to make the world child-safe when this is an adult world we live in. It’s not FantasyLand.

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6

Classifications

Again we run into a problem of classification. Is a photographer who does classy nudes a pornographer? Is a sex ed website?

koma3504
Advocate
Premium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX

Re: Classifications

The Key IS Education NOt Filtering Teach em Right From Wrong And ya A ok lol

Thank's Again
raccettura0

join:2002-09-28
USA

free speech

I hate the free speech argument.

You can say whatever you want in a soundproof booth... but once your outside, your limited by the first ear.

Yes, I personally view the Constitution as a faux doctorine. It exists, but it doesn't truly govern the land. It's open to various interpretations (politics), and that's what counts.

To see the real constitution you really need to overlay every court case, and give emphasis to supreme court cases.

Why they even bother teaching the Constitution in school is beyond me.

The constitution is the legal equivilant of a preview of a "For Dummies" book. For every word you read, there are 10,000 exceptions, and it only covers .001% of subject matter.

It's rather misleading.

Here's another misnomer in US law that 95% of the American public doesn't know about (and insist isn't true when in fact it is):

Who is exempt from VII of the Civil Rights Act?

Answer:
Elected state & local officials, their assistants, and immediate advisors.

That's right.

Your govenor can put out an add for "hot white women wanted for assistant. Minorities need not apply". in the paper... 100% legal. Nothing wrong on that govenors behalf. They acted 100% within the bounds of the law.

btw. Religious Institutions can _only_ discriminate based on Faith (though it's slander to say "discriminate" when refering to a particular institution). Sex, race or Age are still clearly illegal.

Fun stuff you can get out of just reading a Business Law book... just the employment discrimination stuff.

Btw: if you didn't know the above, you should really be fired from your company as just about every state requires enough discrimination training that you should be able to recite _all_ of the exceptions including the above.

And of course the #1 Mistake:

The constitution does not prohibit discrimination on any basis but sex. Only two ammendments even touch on it:

XIX outlaws based on sex only, and Article XV only refers to voting.

Segregation is one of many things completely legal according to the constititution. According to some interpretations it's protected under First Ammendment's right to expression and assembly (separate assembly that is).

Constitutional Law is Faux.

This is why you need a law degree to practice it. Because the Constitution really has no relation to US law. It's just an old piece of paper.

It's US laws that count at the end of the day. And that's what you should respect. Constitution is meaningless for this discussion (or any).
raccettura0

join:2002-09-28
USA

Re: free speech

Oh yea, IANAL.

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
Obsiously you can't model every problem in a complex world using one short document and 27 amendments. But the sheer number of laws that have been thrown out for being unconstitutional certainly make it seem like the constitution is not a faux document, merely a living one.

By the way, the civil rights exemption you mentioned exists because of something we have in America called dual sovereignty. Both the federal government and the states are sovereigns and one cannot generally make laws to compel the other. While the constitution is the highest law of the land and can override even state sovereignty, at the time of the constitution's framing there was a debate between the federalists and those who wanted stronger states.

Besides, the English language (all language) is imperfect, which is why the "strict constructionalists" are full of @#$%.

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

When are they going to "Get it"?

When is the U.S. Government going to get it? The Internet is a world wide communication device. They can't prevent people in other countries from doing anything and everything.

So, as an adult, and who determines this, entity you would need to modify your set up to send on a different port. Not a real big deal in itself, but why put the burden on them?
--
I have two favorite sports teams, University of Michigan and whoever is playing Michigan State.
page: 1 · 2 · next