graysonf
Premium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Re: Is AT&T removing alt.* newsgroups On or before 6/28/2008 The attached list of groups were deleted from newsgroups.bellsouth.net. I have not checked since then to see if more have been deleted. | |
|
 Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| Re: Is AT&T removing alt.* newsgroups said by graysonf  :On or before 6/28/2008 The attached list of groups were deleted from newsgroups.bellsouth.net. I have not checked since then to see if more have been deleted. Well good riddance. I can't imagine why they were kept around this long.
It's complete crap that they are removing the entire hierarchy under the guise of child porn. At least be honest if you don't want to carry Alt.binaries.* anymore. | |
|
 | charlie92
join:2005-09-29
Brandon, MS
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Is AT&T removing alt.* newsgroups "Dennis" has posted (today July 11, 2008) that Bellsouth is working on an official announcement concerning the axing of the alt. heirarcy. I have already switched news providers.
It is simply a move under the guise of "pornography" to lower costs for AT&T while removing access to many many more legitimate ng's. I often read and post in alt.anti-virus. Why should it be dumped as part of a so-called "porno crusade?'
--
DW7000 Pro - G4R 1110Mhz - DI-604 router - 3 Windows XP PC's - Ethernet CAT5 network | |
|
leaving ATT
@sbcglobal.net
| Just read this.
In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online. | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Is AT&T removing alt.* newsgroups Except that Andrew Cuomo isn't trying to protect children from access to salacious content, he is trying to prevent everybody else from accessing content involving underage participants in salacious activity. The latter is, in most jurisdictions, a criminal act (the depiction of underage participants engaged in salacious activity).
It is still overly broad, IMHO, to chop all binary groups when so few were problematic. But I don't think the NYAG cares that the ISPs are being overly broad, as long as they include his pet newsgroups in the access denied list.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| said by leaving ATT :
Just read this.
In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.
The best way to protect your company is to not offer the service at all. You don't worry about any law or court cases because they don't apply to you. Pretty smart huh? | |
|
|
|
|
