Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Government Politics

SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks 343

Posted by Zonk
from the but-i-thought-the-internet-was-*for*-porn dept.
cachedout writes "SCO's Ralph Yarro had the floor yesterday at the Utah Technology Commission meeting in front of Utah lawmakers. Yarro proposed that free wireless sites and subscribers should be held responsible should any porn be delivered to minors because hotspots are apparently where kids go to watch porn all day long. Yarro told lawmakers that open wireless access points should be made a crime because we have an Internet out of control."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks

Comments Filter:
  • Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tibike77 (611880) <tibikegamez@ y a h o o . com> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:29PM (#18805371) Journal
    Is *anybody* taking SCO seriously nowadays anymore ?
    And I don't mean /. readers, I mean the "average Joe that heard of SCO once, in passing".
  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:33PM (#18805469) Homepage Journal
    Whats sco expecting from this ? Favourable attitude from juries/judges in numerous lawsuits they file against ibm ?

    "oh look, we are 'thinking of the children' so give us some of ibm's cash already" ?

    am i totally out of sync (end of a long workday) or did i nail it ?
  • Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Technician (215283) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:55PM (#18805807)
    It's just hard for me to believe that kids are at the local Starbucks checking out some porn.

    I have another reason to believe kids are not going to Starbucks for free WiFi. Starbucks doesn't have free wireless. The service is provided by T-Mobile. I used to think Starbucks had free WiFi and went to one on my travels to use it. It was at Starbucks I learned the truth. While at Starbucks, I found an open WiFi network and used it instead. (not for porn)
  • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ArsonSmith (13997) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:03PM (#18805893) Journal
    I wonder if SCO is actually the good guys playing devils advocate with the courts. Taking cases that they know will be lost in order to set a precedent in future cases that may not be quite so blatantly dumb.
  • I call bullshit. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AlphaLop (930759) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:08PM (#18805961)
    He is obviously fibbing or he is incompetent.

    1. This issue is so important to him but he can't remember what search term he used? He does not remember what he was doing on the internet and yet he wants to legislate it?

    2. Just because you are not techno savvy enough to control what pours into your computer don't assume "the children" can't. They are most likely much more internet and computer capable then he is.

    3. Kinda related to number 2 but if you can't figure out how to channel surf without accidentally tuning into a program that may not be good for children does than mean we need to ban Showtime, Skinamax or even FX (that "The Shield" is pretty violent, oh wait, violence is fine its boobies that are dangerous).

    4. you dont get caught in a "Pornado" (I actually really like this term and will use it from now on) by going to Nickalodian.com(however its spelled)or other mainstream sites, you get them surfing for porn or warez... I wonder which he was searching for? (Doesn't it seem like these people who crusade against something end up being busted for it later 'see anti-gay preacher')

    God I am so sick of these Smacktards.

  • by vimh42 (981236) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:14PM (#18806027)
    I like these lines. He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer. "I've never opened a site in my life, but what pops up is unbelievable," he said. He's lying. He's either making it all up or he visited a porn site after entering that not so explicit serach term.
  • by sadler121 (735320) <msadler@gmail.com> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:17PM (#18806069) Homepage
    That is how non-utah mormons refer to Utah mormons. Most likly there is a reason we decide to not live in Utah and that is because the people are very backward. They can not think for themseleves, and have to be told over the pulpit how to think.

    Mind you this is not the religion Joseph Smith re-organized. He made it clear man has to get knowledge from God, not from man. The current state of Utah Mormonism is due to years of isolation. Utah Mormons form a tight cliche and as a result, it is hard to break into that cliche for those who are not Mormons, or recent converts into Mormonism.

    Sometimes I think if would be good for Utah Mormons to actually leave Utah, and live somewhere else where Mormons are in the minority. Then they would be forced to live with people who do not agree with them, and be able to expand there knowledge of the outside world.

    At least that is why I am not in Utah.

    (I served an LDS mission in Salt Lake City, which would take a novel to even summerize).
  • by sethstorm (512897) * on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:19PM (#18806089) Homepage
    Then maybe you would take a good look at removing the legitimized kidnappers [wikipedia.org] from your state, if not to have the authorities prosecute them for their deeds.
  • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nullav (1053766) <moc@NosPAm.liamg.valluN> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:28PM (#18806197)
    Banning free access points because of the possibility of children looking at porn... Does this mean he's going to try to get all use of the Internet banned in the US? After all, you can look at porn with most any connection.

    Why not just ban children next?
  • by colinrichardday (768814) <colin.day.6@hotmail.com> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:42PM (#18806323)
    Are the searches case sensitive? I don't want any porn when I'm doing a search for "LaTeX forms". Of course, others might not want web pages about computerized typography when searching for "latex forms".
  • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @09:42PM (#18807351) Journal
    Plus it has been ages since I actually got dodgy sites back from Google. It used to be that searching for LaTeX (the mathematical typesetting language) would return very interesting results. Not to mention searching for beyond the standard model physics which is typically abbreviated to "BSM" physics....but even those searches never turn up anything dodgy now.
  • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by damsa (840364) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @10:20PM (#18807653)
    Ironically, porn is illegal in Japan, South Korea and China, a lot of help that does to curtail porn use.
  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @10:28PM (#18807727)
    By this guy's rationale eyesight should be banned because the real world is out of control and you never know when your vision is going to be exposed to something questionable.
  • by fractoid (1076465) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @10:29PM (#18807735) Homepage
    Obviously movies of people having sex will lead impressionable children to homocidal violence.

    Movies of homocidal violence, however, for some reason, do not.

  • Quite right too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimicus (737525) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:56AM (#18809339)
    It is a fact that no matter who buys this material, 75 to 90% of it ends up in the hands of our children.

    We also know that once a person is perverted, it is practically impossible for that person to adjust to normal attitudes in regard to sex.

    (Free clue before you mod me troll: I'm referring to things which have been said in anti-porn propaganda).
  • Re:Ah come on... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JohnnyComeLately (725958) on Friday April 20, 2007 @11:48AM (#18812423) Homepage Journal
    It's amazing how everyone thinks they are the norm and their ideas are either commonly held or believed. One of the things I learned in college is that I'm not at all common. Commonly people aren't the norm. There is so much diversity these days that so many different thoughts and beliefs are possible. Just think back a couple thousand years....the world was thought to be flat and the commoner had no reason to think otherwise. Today, you could post about ANY topic and get a couple hundred different "takes" on the exact same statement of fact (e.g. the world is NOT flat: You'd get discussions of oblong shapes and irregularities...some from experts, many with just a different opinion).

    I normally get along with just about everyone, but the one type of person that always gets to me and confuses me are the ones who think their opinion is the only answer. Even if I have a firm belief, I always remember that my own opinion may be based upon faulty logic, conclusions, observations and other factors of human error. I'm actually looking for opinions that DISPROVE my conclusion and consider whether my argument would still stand in light of the new perspective/fact/etc.

    Anyway, this is why I agree with your 2 posts (that I read) which are different from my point of view but I agree nonetheless. Just because I don't see a reason to leave a WiFi open doesn't mean I think you SHOULDNT. Guilt by association is a slippery slope. Imagine if we banned all paper and computer screens....because we all KNOW child porn is printed on paper or viewed on a screen. We must BAN these products which are OUT OF CONTROL.

    Isn't control just an illusion anyway? When you say you've "lost control" it's actually an oxymoron...but I digress. :)

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...