Riplin
join:2002-05-13
canada | LOL! Good Luck! | |
|
 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP I expect the ISP's will fight this in court, not as any kind of 1st amendment issue, but for the onerous burden put on the ISP to maintain up to date IP address lists for customers desiring the block. I just can't see the ISP's agreeing to this without a major fight - too much expense involved.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
 | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. | |
|
| |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by vpoko  :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's.
But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites.
Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config.
Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem.
Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Since its just blocking a list of porn sites, Id think they'd just send all the http traffic through a transparent proxy. | |
|
| | | | 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. | |
|
| | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by reub2000 :Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. Use of proxies can improve web content viewing. That's the whole premise behind a content-accelerator: you proxy a group of users behind a caching device. The first person to visit a site experiences a small access-time penalty (generally not something noticeable). All subsequent visitors for the target site fetch content from the local cache, not the remote site. Therefore, their fetches are done from closer hosts, thereby accelerating downloads (since the fetches are only going one or two hops, not tens of hops).
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP What about dynamic content. How would it detect that? | |
|
| | | | | | | 
Othello235
@silvereaglemfg.com | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP As long as the page is written correctly, the author will have included a tag noting the dynamic content, which will then not be cached | |
|
| | | | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP But what if a page was not properly marked as dynamic? I'd be POed if I couldn't see new posts on one of my favorite forums. If I wanted caching, I'd just run squid on my server.
Also, how would a web cache detect http traffic? Would it just pass all port 80 traffic. What about sites on port 83? What about sites on port 1351 or 8684? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by TKJunkMail :said by vpoko :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's. But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites. Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config. Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem. Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers. .
Set up your POP routers to do packet inspection.
Well, if they're using PPPoE for connectivity, there's already a level of authentication that could be used to apply profiles to a connection (e.g., force specific accounts through filtered proxies). A possibly more brute force method would be to send all users through HTTP proxies. Enable authentication on the proxies. Customers that have selected porn filtering get additional content-filtering rules applied to their sessions. Users not in the filtered class don't have the content-filtering rules applied.
Doable, but not something that most ISP engineers are likely to be happy to do.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | utah residents will no longer have to worry about porn from their isps, because all the isps will leave. | |
|
| | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Where there is demand, there is supply. Someone will stay, it'll just be expensive. Call it punishment for living with mormons. | |
|
| | |
| | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP You know, that's really not an entirely facetious solution. If ISP's were to terminate everyone who wanted porn-blocking, other ISP's would begin to cater to those customers (supply and demand). Some ISP's would be porn-friendly and some would block it for everyone; the problem of having to maintain lists is solved. | |
|
| | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by vpoko :You know, that's really not an entirely facetious solution. If ISP's were to terminate everyone who wanted porn-blocking, other ISP's would begin to cater to those customers (supply and demand). Some ISP's would be porn-friendly and some would block it for everyone; the problem of having to maintain lists is solved. Again, the lists wouldn't need to be maintained by individual ISPs. Most likely, it could be implemented in the form of DNSBLs.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by vpoko :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I'd be pretty pissed if my tax dollars were going to paying people to maintain this list. This list would have to be ungodfully long and exhaustive to do any good at all.
If I as a consumer don't want porn I simply just don't browse to that porn site. If I do want porn than I do. If I have kids that I don't want browsing to said sites I go and get some software to do it. If there's a big enough market for this then ISP would be happy to do this for a fee. If there isn't then why should the government subsidize something there's no market for?
--
"Boys are girls" - Laura Bush
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad | |
|
| 
moby866
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Above you | I would view it as a state attempting to interrupt interstate commerce. I think that is going to be the best angle the ISP's can work for.
--
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. | |
|
| |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by moby866 :I would view it as a state attempting to interrupt interstate commerce. I think that is going to be the best angle the ISP's can work for. Actually, what will ultimately doom this is that, if they block by IPs rather than names, more than just porn sites will get blocked.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
a
@qwest.net | Re: LOL! lol, i'm glad i'm not lds, i would be embarrased. | |
|
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: LOL! Oh, you're preaching to the choir, I agree with you 100%. I'm just intrigued by the technical challenges of implementing this dumb policy  | |
|
flawlessly
Premium
join:2004-02-09
USA
clubs: | I'm moving to Utah :P | |
|
|
|
|
Is Google & other search engines on porn site list