SCO Chair's Anti-Porn Act Advances In Utah 421
iptables -A FORWARD writes "Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah reportedly plans to sign a resolution urging Congress to enact the Internet Community Ports Act. The ICPA proposes that online content be divided by port, rather like TVs have channels with adult and family content, so that certain internet ports will be 'clean' — so-called Community Ports — and others will be 'dirty.' Thus, they hope to remove objectionable content from port 80 and require that it be moved elsewhere (port 666 was already taken by Doom, sorry), so that people could more easily block objectionable content, or have their ISPs do the blocking for them. This concept is being pushed by the CP80 group, which is chaired by Ralph Yarro, who also chairs the SCO Group. That probably explains why they didn't choose to adopt RFC 3514, instead."
Re:Port 69 (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately port 69 is already assigned. From my /etc/services:
In any case, the concept is fundamentally flawed. Ports are designed to discriminate by protocol, not by service content. This is just another flawed implementation of RFC3514 [ietf.org].
More information... (Score:5, Informative)
More information on this subject, including a detailed discussion of why content segregation is dangerous, can be found in RFC3675 [ietf.org]. It suggests an actual workable solution: PICS tags.
PICS Labels (Platform for Internet Content Selection) is a generalized system for providing "ratings" for Internet accessible material. The PICS documents [w3.org] should be consulted for details. In general, PICS assumes an arbitrarily large number of rating services and rating systems. Each service and system is identified by a URL.
It would be quite reasonable to have multiple PICS services that, in the aggregate, provided 300 bits of label information or more. There could be a PICS service for every community of interest. This sort of technology is really the only reasonable way to make categorizations or labelings of material available in a diverse and dynamic world.
While such PICS label services could be used to distribute government promulgated censorship categories, for example, it is not clear how this is any worse than government censorship via national firewalls.
A PICS rating system is essentially a definition of one or more dimensions and the numeric range of the values that can be assigned in each dimension to a rated object. A service is a source of labels where a label includes actual ratings. Ratings are either specific or generic. A specific rating applies only to the material at a particular URL [RFC 2396 [ietf.org]] and does not cover anything referenced from it, even included image files. A generic rating applies to the specified URL and to all URLs for which the stated URL is a prefix.
This seems like very much the "right" way of doing it. It:
Also, unlike their proposed port breakage, it can easily be turned off if you don't care about it.
Re:The REAL goal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, I believe RFC3514 is probably a joke.
Yeah, just check the date on the RFC: 1 April 2003
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:2, Informative)
This is equivalent to declaring that trucks carrying porn cannot drive on certain roads. It's an attack on infrastructure to solve a political problem.
Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (Score:5, Informative)
.sex considered dangerous (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt [ietf.org]
All of the arguements are there already.
Re:Censorship? (Score:4, Informative)
This resolution avoids the problem by not actually trying to do anything, but the legislation it calls for would be clearly unconstitutional.
Then again, so is McCain-Feingold.
Re:Why not HTML tags? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:dotXXX (Score:4, Informative)
I run adult web sites and PPC advertising is almost unheard of in the adult world.
In fact, while I have dabbled in a couple of PPC programs, I've found that they haven't stacked up nearly as well as affiliate programs. I don't promote one single PPC program at the moment and haven't in years.
The most common PPC programs are dating services. I know a few people who promote them and I've tried them out but they haven't done well on my sites.
The most common source of revenue for adult webmasters are affiliate programs.
Because....
I can make as much as $0.10 / click with some of my better affiliate programs (with the average being around $0.02 / click) but with PPC they pay like $4.00 / 1000 clicks (or $0.004 / click).
How is that worth it ? A good affiliate program can pay anywhere from $25 - $40 / sign-up or 50% recurring (you get 50% of what the affiliate program makes off of the sale for the entire lifetime of the subscription). So if your traffic is "good" (ie: your surfers like what's on your site and they come from "fresh" sources like search engines, bookmarks, related sites that have "good" traffic as well) then you'll do exponentially better with affiliate programs over PPC.
So with that said, I don't have anything to gain by having children hit my sites. They just eat up bandwidth. And adult sites, arguably, burn more bandwidth than any other type of site.
A bid for church reputation (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Utards Do Something!!!!!! (Score:2, Informative)
The LDS church owns an NBC-affiliate TV channel which has chosen not to carry some of NBC's offerings. Even if the leadership of the church has specifically requested that SNL not be carried, how is this a problem? They're a private company. If you don't like what they do with NBC programming, take it up with NBC.
You're wrong about MTV being "banned" in Provo, and I don't even know what you're talking about. There is no University or city-mandated censorship of the channel, and I personally never noticed it not being available at all (if a cable provider *didn't* want to provide channel, they certainly ought to be free not to do so). I also don't understand why you are bothered by blocking of Web sites within the school's network -- it seems to me to be a pretty common practice within "work" environments like businesses and schools.
BYU is a private university. Students, when enrolling, agree to an honor code that restricts their behavior on and off campus. You seem to take offense at the fact the someone would make such a voluntary sacrifice.
There's a fundamental difference between a person voluntarily agreeing to behavior restrictions and a government mandating these restrictions. BYU is "like China" in the same way that making donations to the Red Cross is "like communism."
Re:A bid for church reputation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A bid for church reputation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I believe I speak for all of us here ... (Score:2, Informative)