Utah Considers Forcing ISPs to Filter Content 508
tipsymonkey writes "Cnet is running an article on how the Utah governor is considering signing a law that forces ISPs to filter content deemed harmful to minors. This would apply to large scale ISPs like AOL as well. They have until March 22 to decide whether or not to sign this into law."
If this gets passed... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, and SCO would just get blocked
Re:If this gets passed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Political leaders are not necessarily intelligent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Questioning the sanity of Utah leaders is close to the real issue.
It is not necessary to be intelligent to get elected. It is only necessary to be popular. Many politicians have very little analytical ability. In this case, they can't see all the reasons this idea won't work.
Note to political leaders: Avoid embarrassment! Whenever you are considering a law involving computers, have Slashdot make it a story first. Hundreds of thousands of Slashdot readers will gladly tell you if there are problems with your idea. It's free, and it's quick. You will get at least 500 comments in 24 hours, if your idea is especially embarrassing. Many of the comments will be useless, but there are a lot of very smart Slashdot readers.
Re:Political leaders are not necessarily intellige (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Political leaders are not necessarily intellige (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Political leaders are not necessarily intellige (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Political leaders are not necessarily intellige (Score:3, Insightful)
One possible solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One possible solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, for ISPs, but what about (as the article talks about) wifi cafes? Should they give out free copies of netnanny to anyone who's browsing? Or should they have a netnanny installation (with a wholly seperate login server)?
Re:One possible solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One possible solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the track record of upholding the constitution has not been solid over the last 30 years.
Why do they waste taxpayer money on this?
Because the taxpayers don't have any control over government spending any more.
Re:One possible solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only conclude at this point that there are individuals who are attempting to destroy the barriers between their religious beliefs and the law of the land. Not being an American, to a certain extent it's more of an academic observation. Certainly if the majority of the citizens of the US think it's okay for churches to be used as electoral tools for political parties, then I guess that's what will happen.
But make no mistake, the current batch of wanna-be theocrats are betraying the high and noble ideals of the Founding Fathers. The country they want to create is precisely the kind of country that many English noncomformists fled. They want to turn back the clock, to create a society where the Enlightenment never happened.
Re:One possible solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that's a lot of the foundation for America's mindset; even lo these several centuries later, Puritanism rears its ugly head. Not that America is alone in having such issues, but it does run completely counter to what we *supposedly* stand for.
BTW, what *did* Jefferson believe? I don't recall anything about that from my gleefully-dirt-digging high school US-history teacher (if she'd known, she would have told us!)
Re:One possible solution (Score:3, Informative)
Jefferson was a Deist, and as such, didn't believe in a personal god, but rather Nature's god. Here's some revealing quotes which would, I suspect, disqualify Jefferson in the eye of many a red state voter:
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christ
Re:One possible solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One possible solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Just for the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a constantly reaffirmed [lds.org] it's political neutrality.
In fact the current President of the Church opposes [mormonstoday.com] President Bush's controversial "Faith Based Initiatives"
Now the church leaders as a whole can not really help the fact that 99% of the Mormon populace decide
This won't get passed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like when everyone was trying to pass a law making it illegal to burn the American flag. Of COURSE this would get shot down by the Courts, yet it looks great when re-election comes back around and they get to say "see, I was all for a ban on blah blah blah".
Say what you will on how the Supreme Court will change and then it will start passing these laws, but so far, even the conservative judges can see how un-constitutional these idiot laws are.
Cause it comes down to this...who decides what's "harmful"?
It's BS and yes, it will get shot down. No one will stand for this....and please, don't give me "oh yeah, just wait" crap. That's all speculation.
Re:This won't get passed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This won't get passed (Score:2)
Yet year after year, our legislators march themselves up the hill, pass a dozen of these bills to show their constituents that they're "tough on gays", "tough on crime", tough on pornography", and then march themselves back down, patting each
Stack the courts (Score:5, Interesting)
step 1: paint the internet as evil mean and nasty. Get the brainwashed masses on your side (from both the left and the right) by demonizing the internet as a haven for pornographers and child molestors.
step 2: stack the courts
step 3: get a judgement against one of those non-pornographic child model sites you've been demonizing that equates their content with porn.
step 4: now you can define porn any way you like, the SCOTUS won't stop you because they're stacked 5-4 for the bible beaters and you have a precedent saying porn isn't about content it's about intent of the viewer. Now EVERYTHING "we don't like" can be called porn. Say bye-bye to freedom of expression on the internet, hello to the new corporate padlocks "to protect the children."
step 5: profit! (at least if you're a giant media corp)
Re:Stack the courts (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why you did not get moderated "troll". The MAJORITY of the voters are NOT idiots, but carefully looked at the opposing candidate and decided that they did not want a weather vane in the White house.
Yes, the liberal elites think that they have to protect all those stupid ignorant people and do their thinking for them and impose their even stupider ideas on the clueless majority. I've got NEWS for you, but democracy works for the MAJO
Re:This won't get passed (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what you will on how the Supreme Court will change and then it will start passing these laws, but so far, even the conservative judges can see how un-constitutional these idiot laws are.
Don't be complacent. This country has already gone furt
Re:If this gets passed... (Score:2)
Re:If this gets passed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If this gets passed... (Score:2)
Although I believe BT owns the vast majority of phone lines in the UK, those on BT lines (myself included) pay BT the line rental (about £10 a month I think) for the phone line, then we can choose whichever ADSL ISP (iirc ADSL is the vast majority of broadband access in the UK) we choose, so, for example I have a BT
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FCC ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FCC ? (Score:2)
Slashdot.org (Score:5, Funny)
...'harmful'.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks - I want to be able to have unfettered access - and just teach my OWN kids where they don't want to go. It's called PARENTING!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...'harmful'.... (Score:2)
Re:...'harmful'.... (Score:2)
Re:...'harmful'.... (Score:2, Flamebait)
So, sites promoting polygamy are OK but sites promoting the drinking of caffeine or alcohol (like those belonging to Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Budweiser, etc) are bad. Oh, and anything else that the Mormon church doesn't like either will be considered "harmful" too.
Re:...'harmful'.... (Score:2)
The theory of evolution is clearly harmful, must be filtered away. ;-)
Who decides (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer your question: Back then, judges decided what didn't meet "community standards" for "decency", based on testimony from "community leaders". The above concepts no longer carry much weight. So I'd expect some state regulatory agency to trot out psychologists and other "experts" who would claim that small kids who see porn will grow up to be rapists and serial killers.
Anyway, I agree with you: this is a job for parents. Who would be better served by tracking and controlling [tucows.com] their kids internet usage, instead of leaving it up to some unreliable ISP filter. It's ironic that conservative groups whine about "big government", but never hesitate to call for more intrusive government action when it suits their agenda.
Re:...'harmful'.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the - (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does the - (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the rulings of the Supreme Court, this would be a trivial case for even the lowest courts to strike down, barring an "activist judge".
The system is working as it is intended to. Panic when the Supremem Court (or even the relevant Circuit Court) upholds it, which won't happen. You can't keep stupidity out of the system, you can only build a system robust enough to handle it when it happens.
Probably pass first amendment (Score:2)
It's hard to see how that would violate the first amendment.
Re:Does the - (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, when your comment is moderated as "Funny" I think it sends a pretty clear answer to your question.
ditto (Score:2)
ditto that.
Seriously, doesn't anyone even care anymore that freedom of speech is supposed to be an inalienable human right?
Government censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the start of a short and slippery slope into censorship. The government should have no night to dictate what I can and cannot see or read.
Let's do it the other way around... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's do it the other way around... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let's do it the other way around... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's do it the other way around... (Score:3, Funny)
(Alright, alright. SCO isn't just an internet based company...)
Re:Let's do it the other way around... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the laws and filters and we still can't stop spammers, what makes them think that short of blocking everything, they can stop "harmful" content?
It's prohibition all over again.
Re:Let's do it the other way around... (Score:2)
Matter of choice by consumer (Score:5, Informative)
The proposal , "S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry.""
Content filtering in this case is not forced, but a choice by the consumer
This is similar to the content filter that my local ISPs in .sg offer.
Re:Matter of choice by consumer (Score:2)
Buy stocks! (Score:2)
All they had was an ISP that had an XStop server... so if this gets signed, buy up that's company's stock (dunno what that company is, or even if they're public)
Ironically, DotSafe's customer base was from a Mormon town... Mesa, AZ.
Re:Matter of choice by consumer (Score:3, Interesting)
p
Re:Matter of choice by consumer (Score:2)
Why does the government need to force all ISPs to offer this service? If the customers wanted it, and it was profitable for the ISP to implement it, they would do it.
It seems to be just a case of people trying to force the cost of parenting onto others, in this case the ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bs. (Score:3, Insightful)
missionary (Score:2)
Utah.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Utah.... (Score:4, Informative)
There are a few breakoff groups that do, but they have no affiliation with the LDS church, which practicing polygamy is sufficient to get one excommunicated from.
I've always though this was backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
That way browsers could run checks on it and only display stuff that is suitable.
Re:I've always though this was backwards (Score:3, Informative)
It was a huge flop.
Oh puhleeze (Score:5, Informative)
In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.
Crazy Utah (Score:5, Insightful)
The US (or some state) already tried to pass a law that required a warning that anything not suitible for children on the internet required a warning. The ACLU stopped it quick.
This is just some conservative trying to get more votes by proposing an impossibly unconstitutional law. Like when they tried to pass the law that it was okay to display the 10 commandments in schools. They know it is totally illegal, but gets them a lot of press and cred with their voters.
Re:Crazy Utah (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crazy Utah (Score:3, Insightful)
Second of all, SCOTUS decided there was an inherent right to privacy. I know this is very tough for people who believe their religious beliefs ought to be equal to the law of the land (basically theocratic rule), but that's the way it is. IF you wish to turn the US into another Iran, where Christian Ayatollahs decide what can be seen on the Internet, what women can do with their bodies, and who knows what else, then I feel very sorry for you.
Re:Crazy Utah (Score:4, Informative)
I don't accept that a fetus is a living being, any more than I would categorize a tumor as another living being. I mean, do you think that HeLa cells are human beings?
http://bioresearch.ac.uk/browse/mesh/D006367.html [bioresearch.ac.uk]
I mean, what is your definition of a human being? Does it need a brain? How many chromosones does it need? Is a sperm cell a human being?
Re:Crazy Utah (Score:3, Interesting)
Those mormons (Score:2, Funny)
Censorship and responsibility (Score:2)
The filtering is "upon request" (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon, folks. (Score:2, Informative)
This is a far cry from censorship. It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions. It gives parents the ability to better control the content their children consume and we would all be better off to have such a thing implemented in our ISPs.
Better yet to separate .porn as a domain so that those who want it can find it yet those who don't can b
Re:C'mon, folks. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's _one step_ from censorship: first you force ISPs to build the infrastructure to censor content, then you force them to turn it on permanently a few years down the line.
"It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions"
Which was just as stupid, and another example of backdoor censorship. Made a few bucks for electronics companies, though.
If people want a censored ISP, then they can go to an ISP which chooses to censor content. If they don't want a censored ISP they can go to an ISP that doesn't censor content. It's none of the government's god-damn business whether people choose to have someone else censor their use of the Internet or not.
Re:C'mon, folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I don't have displays of cigarettes, liquor, and porno magazines in my home. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that when my children reach their teen years, if they desire those things they will be able to get them through their friends or their friends' parents who may be more lax about such things.
This legislation will not solve any problems. Truly concerned parents need to have an open relationship with their children, and TALK with them about these things.
Re:C'mon, folks. (Score:2)
Also, your sig quotes Yoda, not Spock.
p
"Christian Purity" offers this now (Score:5, Insightful)
There's "AOL Broadband for Kids", if you want that.
So the free market has this covered. And nobody buys.
Idea: "Heathen Excess" ISP (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interestng to compare the bandwidth statistics, even in Utah.
pr0n is a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't exist.
Re:"Christian Purity" offers this now (Score:2)
Man, I'm gonna get modded "-10 Damned" if I post this. Should I a) switch to AC mode, or b) piss off a couple Christians and let my spectacular karma absorb the hit without taking a dent?
My do I love pissing of religious types. Sweet daughter of Jesus it's easy though. I need better challanges . . . . .
ISP (Score:3, Interesting)
Utah, China ? (Score:2)
Religion the cause most likely (Score:2)
Just like in China! (Score:2)
I sure am glad our Glorious Ministry of Information can protect us from material that can provoke us to think ungood things. I guess China isn't so evil afterall, right?
Which costs more... (Score:2)
Or ISPs giving up their subscriber base in Utah.
It would be interesting to see companies, as a result of this sort of law, throwing their hands in the air and saying "Screw it, we're outta here" Would Utah then sue them and try and force them to come back?
No Kids Allowed (Score:2)
Seriously, children should not be allowed to use the net unattended - it's not a babysitter and "dumbing" the internet down to a level that's safe for children pushes more adults off of the net than it allows children on.
Re:No Kids Allowed (Score:2)
Re:No Kids Allowed (Score:2)
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make! This kind of thing pisses me off, check out this article [cnn.com] on CNN right now, basically to me it say's that the American way of doing things is always to shift the blame/responsibility onto someone else. No. People are responsible for their own actions - period. And if your not an adult then your parents are responsible for you.
Not the ISP's responsibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several consumer software products which are relatively inexpensive that do the job of filtering web content. Hell, many companies bundle this in with their consumer firewall software. If parents desire web content filtering, they should be able to go to the store and buy software that will do the job.
No government, at any level, should be forcing the ISP to do the job of the parents.
An easier solution (Score:2)
So, I propose an easier solution.
I cannot guarantee that my blog, homepage, etc. will not contain content that might be considered by some nut to be harmful to children. Therefore, I'll simply block all addresses that are identifiably Utah-based from accessing my site. The ISPs win, the Utah citizens win.
what's considered "offensive material" in Utah? (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, implementing this requires one of two things:
1) IP-level filtering, which will block non-adult sites on the same hosting services.
2) Transparent proxying, which breaks lots of things, and is relatively easy to circumvent unless even more things are broken.
As far as I can tell, the law creates a registry which the service providers must either block or provide customers software to block. It doesn't seem to require that they clairvoyantly block proxies, which is technically infeasible. Unfortunately, the full text is not available, as the Utah legistlature's web server is returning an error on the text as amended, which is 10 times as long as the text as introduced.
While this is a stupid use of taxpayer money, I don't find the issue of a central, publicly-scrutinizable list of adult sites to be blocked voluntarily to be a bad thing. The real danger is that they will mandate that it be used in schools, libraries, etc., in which case it's truly a 1st Amendment issue. The amount of money they've allocated to build the registry ($100,000) is about enough money to run a dozen obscenity cases if you're REALLY lucky, so the list is going to be full of errors. This is bad policy regardless, but if it is used anywhere in any state-run institution, whether or not by mandate, it's censorship, and mistaken censorship at that.
Why don't they just secede? (Score:2)
Remember: Porn kills love (Score:2)
Not harmful to minors (Score:2)
there ought to be a law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:there ought to be a law... (Score:4, Interesting)
-
XXX domain (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that there was some worry about borderline sites (breast cancer, anatomy, etc.) being forced into XXX status. It seems to me that a review board could decide on those, or, even individual ISPs or users that block XXX urls could whitelist the borderline ones. All in all it seems too small an issue to derail the whole idea.
I have heard it said that this won't stop foreign sites. This is true,but if all US porn was put under an XXX domain, that would be big step. And remember, the porn isn't being banned. People, companies and ISPs would be able to make their own choices about what sites to let in. As for who gets the new XXX domain names, I say that existing .com porn site holders should get the right of first refusal.
I like porn as much as the next guy. At the same time, I don't think it ought to be accessible at schools, libraries, work, etc. To people who cry "censorship!" at this, what would happen if you took out a Penthouse in home-room in gradeschool, or sat there at work reading a Playboy? Access to porn should be something I am able to block, allow etc. based on my own choices either on my machine or by choosing an ISP with XXX blocking policies that fit my needs.
Re:And before you know it... (Score:2)
Re:And before you know it... (Score:2)
But yet the US is spreading this love and that mytical being, 'freedom'.
Something isn't right here...
*there is no emoticon for what I'm feeling*
Re:Morons....err....Mormons... (Score:2)
That's why we have this thing called "parenting". You know, the stuff like "you sit next to your kid when he's looking some info on the net for some school report and you help him" or the other thing like "this is bad and you should not do it, you should try to respect other kids".
Parenting is such a wonderful world I'm sure you would love it. Give it a try one day!
Re:Morons....err....Mormons... (Score:2)
For others I would point out, TYPICALLY, and primarily as a means of support for families who's patriarch had died due to the hardships of the time & place..for support of the family that remained. Yes, I think the system was occasionally abused also
(the old 'Oh daddy' joke comes to mind)
Bringham Young was
Re:Morons....err....Mormons... (Score:4, Insightful)
And as is consistently pointed out when LDS-dominated Utah officials and residents make this grand proclamation, talk is cheap. When it comes to actually enforcing these laws, things are quite a bit different.
How very cute. If we don't agree with this government-enforced nonsense, we must be bad parents.
Well I see you that load of horse shit and raise you one. I think the crappiest parents are the ones who need the organs of state to preserve their precious offspring from the Internet. A good parent has a relationship with his or her child, keeps an eye on what his or her child is doing, and is proactive in matters of pornography. Simply not letting young children on unsupervised computers ought to do the trick.
Passing these laws is a sign of lazy parents who are unwilling to do the heavy work. Do you think public libraries should censor that you consider filthy? How about book stores, should they prevented from selling the Joy of Sex?
"For the children" is a cheap political ploy that apparently you have bought into.