Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Politics

Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn 574

Posted by Hemos
from the i-can't-define-pr0n-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it dept.
vicpylon writes "A Utah businessman and his non-profit organization wants to limit pornography to certain ports in the TCP/IP protocol. He is literally suggesting legislatively restricting porn sites to certain ports, so that the "offensive" content is easier to block. This is not workable on so many levels that it is laughable. International adult sites not subject to US laws, proxy servers, enforcement issues all leap to my tired mind as major flaws in his plan. He is lobbying congress, so do not be surprised to see this discussed by some headline grabbing politico. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by squidinkcalligraphy (558677) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:07AM (#14127946)
    Port number 69?
    • by Stephen Williams (23750) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:15AM (#14127998) Journal
      According to the /etc/services file on my box, 69/udp is already taken by tftp, though there's no reason why 69/tcp couldn't be assigned to www-pr0n or whatever.

      The same /etc/services file indicates that port 30 is unassigned for both tcp and udp; that'd be my pick, as it's XXX in Roman numerals.

      -Stephen
    • by squoozer (730327) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:28AM (#14128094)

      Or possibly 88 (two fat ladies) for those who like that sort of thing.

      oooh, that was so non-PC on soooo many levels.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      From the article:
      No matter what Web site children are visiting, Internet pornography is just one click away, Manning said.
      Perhaps Mr. Manning should start by cleaning up his collection of bookmarks.

      Because except for them, I can't really see how you can get from anywhere on disney.com to a porn site in a single click.

  • by Vengeance (46019) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:07AM (#14127951)
    Unfortunately, what I want to restrict, in general, is the power of the people in charge... Political types just aren't very good at running things for anyone but themselves and their buddies. This is not a (particular) jibe at the Bush administration, just a general observation about the worst suck-ups on this planet, the politicians.
    • by squarooticus (5092) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:17AM (#14128013) Homepage
      And yet, for some reason, whenever the people speak, they keep electing those who want to take more of our rights away in the name of protecting the children, or protecting the environment, or protecting old people, or protecting stupid people, etc. Will the balance ever shift in the other direction?
    • by rundgren (550942) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:47AM (#14128210) Homepage
      I consider myself the "political type," yet I agree that politicians should have as little power as necessary to keep society safe. Especially here in Norway, with it's socialist traditions, most of the politicians should learn to let go of their power and give more power to the individual and the market.

      But: unlike most people I don't think politicians are evil assholes, suck-ups or idiots. I think they have mostly good intentions, but often select the wrong solution - not because of evil intentions, but because of short-sightedness, lack of understanding of consequences, wrong priorites, lack of respect for the indidual's right to autonomy and so-on.

      Bottom Line: The only way to improve politicians is to become one yourself.
      • by keraneuology (760918) on Monday November 28, 2005 @12:18PM (#14129579) Journal
        The real problem is that everybody says that their senator/representative/president/mayor/governor is the single breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant cesspool of politics. Their elected is truly a member of the elect and if only he could call the shots then everything would be straightened out. This is why - despite an overwhelming disapproval of the electees by the electors - the same people get voted back in time and time again.

        In another thread somebody was waxing long about how his electee was great and did this good and that good - in the form of sponsoring bills - without acknowledging all of the bad bills this guy had voted for. His initial support of the PATRIOT act (something that only the evil or the stupid would have voted for) was dismissed with "the guy made a mistake and shouldn't lose his job over it". THERE is the problem.

        We need more elected like Cincinnatus - and fewer with the raw, naked ambition, powerlust and sense of entitlement as present in the families of Bush and Kennedy and, most recently, Hillary - aspiring to be the first woman to sleep her way into the oval office. (Let's face it... if she didn't put out for Billy all those years she wouldn't be a senator today - everything she is stems from her willingness to share the task of polishing Slick's Willie.)

        Democrats seeks to appease the dead weight of the nation - and as such have direct financial and political incentive to make people as dependent on the government as possible. Let's face it: Dems directly and unashamedly benefit from having welfare rolls as large as possible and have zero incentive to shrink their guaranteed constituent base and every reason to make those numbers increase.

        Republicans seek to appease those who actually make the economy work - at the expense of everybody else - and are, unfortunately, less interested in allowing everybody a fair chance to reach the top than maintaining the status quo.

        As has been said, if you aren't a democrat at 20 you don't have a heart. If you aren't republican at 50 you don't have a brain.

        Bottom line: I don't want to become a politician because I don't want to play in the mud with the swine. I don't think anybody can be a successful politician unless they are lying sell-outs willing to conduct interior visual inspections of their own colons on demand by a lobby rat for a special interest group. And I don't think the citizens want it any other way. Our last presidential election was, for all intents and purposes, split 50/50 between a liar and a ... well, between two liars. The only difference is that Kerry wanted to advance himself and King George II wanted to advance his friends. The citizenry bickered (and continues to whine) about how unfair the election was, how poor of a selection there was... but never called for the ouster of the chairs of the GOP/Dems who are responsible for putting these two twits on the ballot.

        The nation sucks. The people don't want to do anything but whine about it. This is what they want. This is what they demand. This is what they deserve.

  • by quigonn (80360) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:08AM (#14127952) Homepage
    The TCP port that will be used for it is obviously 69. Actually, this is a great help, as a simple "tcpdump -w pr0n.log 'port 69'" writes all the porn downloaded by your colleagues to a tcpdump file, from which all the video and image files could be extracted later.
  • People should learn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whereizben (702407) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:08AM (#14127955) Journal
    That if your kids are doing it, a.) you might want to try getting more involved with them so they understand why you think porn is "evil" and b.) they may not actually be hurt by it, but who knows. As for the technological aspect, it is ridiculous, but people don't seem to understand these sort of things when they suggest them. Now whoever opposes it, even if on the basis of saying it won't be plausible, they will be "unpatriotic"!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#14127973)
      I was terribly damaged by porn when I was only 3. My father had a huge porn collection which unfortunately fell on top of me.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but I have to throw it out there anyhow.

      I just got back from fixing parental controls on my Aunt's computer. Her 11 year old son managed to sneak his way past her parental controls and look at some pretty hard core pornography. Her son is a very good kid and raised well, but has the hormones of an 11 year old. He has to use the Internet for school, and also IMs his friends, and she was about 10 ft away in the next room when he was looking at the pictures. Basica
      • by One Childish N00b (780549) on Monday November 28, 2005 @01:37PM (#14130358) Homepage
        Said boy has unlimited access to pictures of men demeaning women, and learns at age 11 to treat women as sexual objects, there for his gratification.

        Unless this kid has been watching sado-masochist master-slave bondage hardcore, he hasnt seen anyone degraded - how is a woman degraded by having sex? how is the man less degraded than the woman? You're just going back to the rather medieval belief that women lie back and think about knitting and kittens while men ravish them - *women enjoy sex too*, and if getting paid for sex is exploitation, then the men are being just as exploited as the women - there are no passive performers in porn, the women are there by choice as well; If a girl watched porn (and trust me on this, a lot of them do), are they learning to 'treat men as sexual objects, there for their gratification'?

        Please don't start on the 'pornography exploits women' bullshit, it's not true, and if you don't believe me, here's a BBC article about a (female) performer who agrees that if anyone's exploited in porn, it's the buyers [bbc.co.uk].

        Whatever your opinion on whether porn degrades or not, claiming one sex is more exploited than the other (unless you were talking about the nasty S&M stuff, but then even that has a *huge* niche of women dominating men) is an entirely unfounded suggestion rooted in the belief that women do not have sexuality or sex drive - if women want to get paid to have sex, and are paid handsomely for doing so on camera, precisely where is the exploitation occurring?

        /feminist_rant
        • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday November 28, 2005 @02:25PM (#14130793) Journal

          Unless this kid has been watching sado-masochist master-slave bondage hardcore, he hasnt seen anyone degraded - how is a woman degraded by having sex?

          Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults? Forget the hardcore stuff that no sane person would want their blank slate child seeing. Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?

          I don't see porn as exploitation of the actors. If anything it's exploitation of the idiots who buy it. But that doesn't mean that I think it's good for my 11 year old to see. If he is curious and downloads a few pictures of naked chicks off Usenet then I'm not going to be too worried about it. If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy ;)

          • by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday November 28, 2005 @03:24PM (#14131381) Homepage Journal
            Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults?

            What does "love" have to do with it? Are you suggesting that all sexual behavior should involve love? I mean, if that's how you want to behave, why then I think that's how you should behave, but where do you get the idea that your prerequisite of love is something that should be enforced on the rest of humanity? Who died and left you arbiter of sexual correctness? The fact is, plenty of sexual behavior, mutually consenting, goes on that is just for the fun of it, and this has always been the case. If you want to teach your kid that "love" is required (thereby biasing him in such a way that he's going to have a heck of a lot less fun than my kids, for instance) that's certainly your right as a parent. Because you're the parent. Stop assuming you know what's best for other people's kids. You don't. Aside from that, you're not the parent of other people's kids. It is doubtful you know what is best for your own — you just have the power and authority to impose your will on them, that's all. You may be correct. But you may not. You do what you think is best; that's your right, mostly.

            Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?

            Some is, some isn't, but the key thing that kills your idea is that it varies by viewer, not by production. Personally, I make it a point to try lots of things I see in porn. My sweetheart encourages this behavior, it has benefited her in the obvious manner many times. We own plenty of toys, films, and in fact, we run a pretty cool online store [thighhighstudios.com] that in its own humble way, encourages people to enjoy themselves.

            If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy ;)

            So... you went from "Forget the hardcore stuff" to "shit on her"... apparently, you've got a little problem separating the idea of sexuality from that of dangerous behaviors. There's a reason we bury, flush and otherwise dispose of our solid waste products; They are uniformly dangerous. Urine, in a healthy person, is pretty sterile. Fecal matter is not. So what you're talking about here is general education, not unlike condom education, where certain behaviors carry risks. As a parent, it seems to me that your duty is to educate the kid(s) about what the risks are, what the preventative actions for those risks are, and they'll be able to draw decent conclusions from that information.

            Aside from that, just as Hunt for Red October and Murder at 1600 were fantasies, so are all other movies with fictional plot lines. Unprotected sex in a movie is, you might want to point out, acting of an unprotected sex scene between individuals who are tested (weekly, I think, but at least monthly) for STDs, and you should probably be able to point out that the adult film community has an excellent record of avoiding STDs because of this testing and certification. The general public does not, and that is the difference between on screen unprotected sex and the same by the general public. Unprotected sex between two committed, tested, monogamous people is just fine by all rational metrics; prevention of unwanted children can be done (and should be done) by means other than condoms; condoms have a pretty poor record of preventing pregnancy. On the other hand, some condoms can be fun, now and then, if you know what you're doing. Just don't count on them to "protect" anyone. They slip off, they tear, they overflow, and they suffer damage when stored improperly (such as in a wallet, where many men often keep them.)

            • by Shakrai (717556)

              What does "love" have to do with it? Are you suggesting that all sexual behavior should involve love? I mean, if that's how you want to behave, why then I think that's how you should behave, but where do you get the idea that your prerequisite of love is something that should be enforced on the rest of humanity?

              And where did you get the idea that your concept of sex just for fun should be enforced on the rest of humanity (mainly, other peoples children)? And how do you draw the conclusion that I'm forci

              • by fyngyrz (762201)

                And where did you get the idea that your concept of sex just for fun should be enforced on the rest of humanity (mainly, other peoples children)?

                I have no such idea. In fact, I said that you can do whatever you want to your children, implying that the next person can do what they want with theirs, and so on, ad infinitum. What I was saying is that your idea of "loving sex" is no metric for anyone but yourself and those you can control, e.g., your kids.

                Oh, give me a fricking break!

                Yes, w

  • Qualifications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NormalVisual (565491) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#14127966)
    Hmm - this wingnut used to be the CEO for The Canopy Group and is a major SCO stockholder? Yeah, he'll be the first guy I run to for tech advice....
  • by Loconut1389 (455297) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#14127967)
    Time and time again we see that the courts and politics in general are just flat out not equipped to handle technical issues- then throw in people who don't know much about technology to begin with and you really have a problem.

    I don't know if there is a solution but to wait long enough to get a techy judge in the supreme court (and lower courts hopefully), get techy guys in congress, etc.. Some how I don't think we'll live long enough.
    • Techies like the facts and to just get the truth said, even if people don't like it when it's out there.

      Politics is the art of manipulating "the truth" so make yourself look superior to everyone else. The two clash heavily and so it's very unlikely we will see any geeks with any real point in our life time.

      But hey maybe Joe Sixpack will wake up and see this all and at a long shot we'll stop the bullshit fest that is politics today.
  • by interiot (50685) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#14127969) Homepage
    It really is obvious, but one of the reasons this wouldn't work is that it would force all porn transports (HTTP, Usenet, FTP, Bittorrent, ...) to listen on the same port number. Yeah, it could probably be done if there's a truly dire need to do so (eg. on corporate firewalls, everything proxies over :80 these days), but it's almost certainly always a bad idea to do.
  • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:13AM (#14127985)

    This idea is doomed for the same reason that the .xxx top-level domain was...namely, because setting aside a resource for pr0n is tantamount to condoning it on some level, and if Bush and his cronies want to continue to enjoy the backing of the fundies, they can't be percieved as giving adult content on the internet any legitimacy at all.
  • by vidarh (309115) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:14AM (#14127990) Homepage Journal
    The "business man" in question, Ralph Yarro, is the guy that used to run Canopy group (SCO's largest shareholder) until he was ousted after a battle with the Noorda family over control. Hardly the kind of guy you'd want involved in anything requiring a sliver of ethics...
  • by tpgp (48001)
    This idea is from Ralph Yarro [forbes.com]

    I wonder if it will be as successful as the SCO group [yahoo.com] under his leadership?
  • by Ihlosi (895663) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:17AM (#14128015)
    Just block every port that could possibly be suspected to be used to transfer p0rn, i.e. 0-65535. You know, just like with terrorists ? Just being a suspect is proof enough.



    Then your computer and kids will be safe from p0rn from the Internet

  • Front-page worthy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874)
    Can we have a topic called "Yes its news, but its only flamebait on Utah republicans, so we're not going to post it, because it lacks any technical merit, and even the most ignorant of Slashdot readers could hack around these restrictions within seconds"?
    C'mon, do we REALLY need to see this on the front page? Is the next article going to be "Sometimes audio CDs have data on them too!" or "Government wishes it could read everyone's email" ?
    I'd like to see Slashdot rise up to the "technical news that matters
  • by romit_icarus (613431) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:17AM (#14128019) Journal
    Utah Woman Deletes the Internet! By Tom 7 (Dissociated Press) REDMOND: Millions of frustrated calls rushed into internet service providers this past thursday as "The Information Superhighway" was reported Missing In Action for several days. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) traced the problem to a home in Utah where Doris Packuko resides. She was allegedly found "hysterical and crying", police say. "That much information flowing through the phone lines all at once generates a lot of heat," Doug Wernicke of the IETF told us, "We just followed the smell of burning fiber optics." "Apparently, she just deleted The Internet right off her desktop. Even after being warned, 'are you sure you want to delete The Internet?', she persisted." Experts claim that this is a major problem with The Information Superhighway, perhaps even worse than animal pornography. "The Internet is a great cooperative work, built by millions of people. It is so unfortunate that it can be ruined by just one person. Thank God we were able to save it," commented Packuko's neighbor. The IETF was able to recover most of The Internet by opening up Packuko's Recycle Bin and dragging The Internet back onto the desktop. The rest was restored from the master backup copy kept on Zip Disk in the pentagon. Puckuko claims ignorance was the cause of her act. "I just didn't know. I was trying to clean up my desktop and I deleted it. I ... I just didn't realize." Microsoft Corporation reports that they are currently working on a bug fix.
    • by S714726 (875012)
      It's always wonderful when someone rips a web page in its entirety without citing any source. The first result from a Google search for the quote can be found here [windowsitpro.com]; this page credits a no-longer-existent page.
  • by jonwil (467024) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:18AM (#14128021)
    Is to implement a special top-level-domain for porn, something like the .xxx domain that was proposed (and rejected IIRC).

    That would have almost no technical issues and be just as easy to block as this braindead proposal.
  • by MadFarmAnimalz (460972) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:18AM (#14128022) Homepage
    Everyone okay with that?
  • Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kamapuaa (555446) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:18AM (#14128025) Homepage
    So to sum it up: A Utah businessman nobody cares about plans on asking politicians to implement an unworkable idea. This wouldn't make page 9 of a high-school newspaper, what's it doing on Slashdot?
    • The fact that Ralph Yarro is involved and is claiming to have gotten positive feedback from relativel heavyweights like Orrin Hatch is more than enough reason to start worrying about it.
    • Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by maxzilla (786061)
      unfortunately the politicians don't know its not a workable plan. Maybe if they spoke to someone who could explain how dumb it was before they get on a CNN press confrence we could stop this. maybe instead of making laws to restrict porn we could make laws to make sure politicians check the technical feasability of a plan before they run with it...
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:19AM (#14128029) Homepage
    The first problem: What's porn? The second problem: Who decides what's porn? The third problem: Who enforces it?
    • by hey! (33014) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:03AM (#14128329) Homepage Journal
      Broadly, this is John Milton's argument against censorship in his famous essay Areopagitica.


      It cannot be denied but that he who is made judge to sit upon the birth or death of books, whether they may be wafted into this world or not, had need to be a man above the common measure, both studious, learned, and judicious;
      [...]
        If he be of such worth as behooves him, there cannot be a more tedious and unpleasing journey-work, a greater loss of time levied upon his head, than to be made the perpetual reader of unchosen books and pamphlets, ofttimes huge volumes.
      [...]
        no man of worth, none that is not a plain unthrift of his own hours, is ever likely to succeed them, except he mean to put himself to the salary of a press corrector; we may easily foresee what kind of licensers we are to expect hereafter, either ignorant, imperious, and remiss, or basely pecuniary.


      In short:
      1. Men worthy of the post of censor must be of uncommon virtue and character.
      2. Such men will necessarily find wading through vulgar materials distasteful and will seek to vacate the post.
      3. Therefore, ultimately the system must eventually employ the unvirtuous.


      Milton was talking about theological writings here, but in this case the point is that the job of censor is a natural magnet for perverts. To this he adds a psychological argument about the way people use information:


      To the pure, all things are pure; not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled.

      [..]
      ... best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.


      It may be that people have a set-point for titillation, the way some people think we have a set point for fat metabolism. To the Victorians, the sight of an ankle, or a woman in the very modest underclothese of the time, were no doubt as arousing as hard core porn is to modern Internet users. It may not be coincidental that prostitution was practiced on a scale never seen since.

      Finally Milton makes another telling point about the legislation of morality:


      If every action, which is good or evil in man at ripe years, were to be under pittance and prescription and compulsion, what were virtue but a name, what praise could be then due to well-doing, what gramercy to be sober, just, or continent? Many there be that complain of divine Providence for suffering Adam to transgress; foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the motions. We ourselves esteem not of that obedience, or love, or gift, which is of force: God therefore left him free, set before him a provoking object, ever almost in his eyes; herein consisted his merit, herein the right of his reward, the praise of his abstinence. Wherefore did he create passions within us, pleasures round about us, but that these rightly tempered are the very ingredients of virtue?


      Enshrining values in law only makes them superfluous.
  • Mentions relationships between...
    • Ralph Yarro
    • SCO
    • pr0n
  • by Rob Kaper (5960) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:19AM (#14128036) Homepage
    There are only 61538 ports. That's barely enough to categorise my personal fetishes, let alone everyone else's. Where on earth are we going to leave all the other content?
  • by ettlz (639203) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:20AM (#14128038) Journal
    .."port knocking" and "port sniffing".
  • Great US exports (Score:4, Interesting)

    by melonman (608440) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:21AM (#14128046) Journal

    International adult sites not subject to US laws

    True, but just getting US-generated and US-hosted porn under control, as well as porn passing through US-owned ISPs, would account for quite a lot of sites, and an awful lot of the sites that tend to pop up in Google. America is regularly cited as one of the obstacles to dealing with Internet porn - if it took any steps, however technically incompetent, to address the issue, it would make an enormous difference.

    I realise that restricting access to porn may not be a subject dear to the heart of all /.ers, but I have the impression that most of the rest of this thread is going to boil down to "no-one can do a thing about porn, la la la la I can't hear you", when the reality is that a lot of people around the world would like to see the present situation changed, and, one way or another, sooner or later, that will result in legislation. And if a solution is finally imposed, it may well turn out to be as draconian as the French government's anti-nazi legislation, which has been successfully imposed on Yahoo.

    • by hummassa (157160) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:57AM (#14128280) Homepage Journal
      you even did not see the dept. this article comes from ("the i-can't-define-pr0n-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it dept.") There IS NO Porn. A breast cancer site shows women (some of them beautiful) touching and massaging their own boobs. Is a Victoria's Secret catalog porn? To prohibit something, you should be able to define it first.
      One absurd example: my son, one year and a half ago (he was four) took all his clothes by the pool; my wife snapped a picture of him as he had done so. Some jurisdictions consider possessing a picture of a nude 4yo as child porn, with some stiff criminal penalties. Does this seem reasonable to you?
      • That's all very sensible and logical, unlike this type of legislation. The fact that one can't define porn objectively will simply lead to an over-broad definition. Yes, that means that laws like this would affect breast cancer awareness sites. Yes, that means your wife's innocent picture of your son would interest your local child welfare agency. (I suggest not showing it to them; people have had their kids taken away for less than that.)

        The answer to the "can't define porn well" problem is not that t

  • Logic? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shoten (260439) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:22AM (#14128051)
    I particularly love the notion that they have that, by sequestering porn off to its own ports, they'll manage to avoid the risk of infringement of First Amendment rights that has come with things like the CDA. But I guess they really aren't thinking about WHO will decide what is and isn't porn, are they? :)
  • by joely (261109) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:23AM (#14128058) Journal
    There is currently a petition being driven by my local MP to try and ban 'violent pornographic websites' see BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4460828.stm [bbc.co.uk][BBC News]. Whilst not directly related to this article it is an example of the general public thinking that something can actually be done about these things!

    Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for Liz Longhurst who has lost her daughter I do wish that my MP and other MPs would spend 30mins talking to some IT guys to discover that this is an impossible task. Currently they must be wasting lots of time at the taxpayer's expense.

    If anyone else in the UK feels the same as me then please use the http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com] Write-to-them website to get a message to your MP!
    • There is currently a petition being driven by my local MP to try and ban 'violent pornographic websites'

      To be fair, this one is only about attempting to extend the laws which cover possession of child pornography to violent porn (rape, mutilation, etc). She's not trying to ban porn websites, just the (currently legal) possession of their materials within the United Kingdom. Yes, I think it's unworkable, but it's not an entirely incoherent approach. Yarro's proposal is just plain crazy. He could even mak


  • P2P - Porn 2 Peers
    HTTP - Hypertexttransport for porn.
    FTP - Filetransfer for porn.
  • Porn...what porn? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just 3 bright comments:

    1. Wouldn't it be easier to establish a kid-friendly port (i.e. a sandbox port) - concerned parents and other censors can them simply block everthing else.

    2. What is porn? A picture of a woman in a bikini might constitute porn in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, in a liberal European country the definition might be different.

    3. Privacy issues - if porn is transmitted thro the porn port all users of that port might be labelled as porn fiends.

    M
  • RFC 3514 [faqs.org] already introduces the evil bit. So it should be easy to extend this RFC and also introduce a "porn bit". Tagged packets should be easy to filter out with a proper configured packet filter and there shouldn't be any fuss about proxies and so on...

    SCNR this one, so don't mod me down for not knowing that RFC3514 is an april fools day joke.

  • The xxx tld (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:34AM (#14128128) Homepage
    The xxx tld was a better idea. Is the urban legend that it was struck down by the US conservative Christian right correct, or Slashdot propoganda? Even if this were possible, it would probably don the same fate.
    • Re:The xxx tld (Score:5, Informative)

      by Snowhare (263311) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:05AM (#14128347) Homepage
      Not an urban legend: Concerned Women for America - Tell Department of Commerce to Nix .XXX Domain [cwfa.org]. It's the old "You can't give it legal recognition because that would imply approval of it." You see the same behavior from the Christian Right regarding condom distribution, sex education, needle exchange programs, anti-homophobia campaigns and any other thing they view as 'enabling sin'.
      • Re:The xxx tld (Score:3, Interesting)

        by shrubya (570356)
        The fight wasn't quite so cut and dried. There were actually four separate, comparably loud, factions:
        1. ANTI: conservatives as stated who felt that .xxx would legitimize porn
        2. FOR: other conservatives who felt that .xxx would help them ghettoize & block porn
        3. FOR: porn advocates who felt that .xxx would legitimize porn
        4. ANTI: porn advocates who felt that group 2 would succeed at ghettoizing & blocking porn
  • by selil (774924) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:41AM (#14128164)
    What a boon if done. Think about it! Law enforcement would only have to monitor one port for specific traffic. If you were caught off port then you are already breaking the laws. Not only would companies be able to filter, but ISP's would be able to charge extra for Porn Ports. YOu want this access to this content and wham! it's an extra $19.95. Don't believe it? What about comcastic locking down port 25? NNTP dying on the vine just add Porn Ports? Are we going to need specific Porn Browsers? AOL will be able to charge extra for adult access. This has all the novelty of another idealogues attempt to protect the wayward from themselves.
  • by Snowhare (263311) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:53AM (#14128253) Homepage

    Something about other governments wanting to impose censorship on the net?

    Oh, you meant evil censorship of things the US government approves of rather than good censorship of things it disapproves of....

  • Hard Core (Score:5, Funny)

    by daveewart (66895) on Monday November 28, 2005 @09:53AM (#14128254)

    From TFA: "we are all hard-core technology businessmen".

    How appropriate.

  • One simple question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother@HORSEop ... minus herbivore> on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:09AM (#14128369) Journal
    Just who is this guy going to get to do this? I'm not volunteering... Leave the p0rn alone. Most of it is harmless. Expend the energy going after child pornographers; that's a fight I'll sign up for.
  • by hotspotbloc (767418) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:12AM (#14128391) Homepage Journal
    Years ago I worked for the State group that provided Internet service and support to Utah's k-12 schools. Each district controlled what was filtered and we reviewed/added/deleted any requests. While most requests were to block real porn sites other requests for blocking included sites including and like: now.org, mtv.com and the SI swimsuit issue.

    The controlling interest in Utah will not be happy and will not stop until the State is blocked off with something like the Great Firewall of China. Look at who owns the newspaper in question. The Internet and it's ability to encourage people to be challenged by new ideas is not compatible with their interests. While the call is to stop "porn" now, we all know it's the first step down a slippery path.

    Personally I think Zappa gives the best advice here:

    From "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing":

    Those Jesus Freaks
    Well, they're friendly but
    The shit they believe
    Has got their minds all shut
    An' they don't even care
    When the church takes a cut
    Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'

    [...]

    Do what you wanna
    Do what you will
    Just don't mess up
    Your neighbor's thrill
    'N when you pay the bill
    Kindly leave a little tip
    And help the next poor sucker
    On his one way trip. . .
    SOME TAKE THE BIBLE. . .
    (Aw gimme a half a dozen for the hotel room!)

  • by linumax (910946) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:31AM (#14128545)
    Hey, I'm really pissed
    They are fu**ing with the only source for an slashdotter to know what the world fu** really means
  • Quick Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mitchell_pgh (536538) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:39AM (#14128621)
    Why a port?

    Here is my idea, require a <porn> or <adult> tag on all sites that contain porn or are intended for an adult audience.

    We could also implement a <safe=040382672178283940405> code for all sites that are safe for children... which only major sites would bother registering for... this would let parents lock down their computers. You can either now allow porn or only allow approved sites...

    Good idea? I think requiring a different port would only lead to mass censorship.
  • Metatags (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbeaupre (752124) on Monday November 28, 2005 @10:45AM (#14128675)
    It's not just porn that needs filtering. Ever do research on Google and have to wade through tons of irrelelivant hits? I honestly think Google could improve searching and help people self select content in one stroke. A quick metatag, or equivalent, that encodes subject type and maturity level would be happily picked up by web designers ... if it helps drive traffic. And it could. If Google had an option that let you say "I want to limit to X" then those people who are promoting "X" will be highly motivated to include that tag on their page. The tag couldn't be used for multiple subjects, or it would act as a key word search again. But if I could say "I'm looking for an ACADEMIC ABSTRACT" then I won't find porn, commerical sites, or little Susy's musings. I'll find abstracts. On the flip side, a browser filter that people can self select to avoid certain types of content based on the tags isn't censorship. It's personal choice.
  • by eyeball (17206) on Monday November 28, 2005 @11:10AM (#14128929) Journal
    That's such a terrible implementation. It should be incorporated into the OSI model:

    • 8 - Application
    • 7 - Presentation
    • 6 - Moral Control Protocol
    • 5 - Session
    • 4 - Transport
    • 3 - Network
    • 2 - Data Link
    • 1 - Physical


    (BTW, I'm joking)

  • by flashingcurser (934530) on Monday November 28, 2005 @07:10PM (#14133379) Homepage
    I'm currently getting ready to set up a squid proxy/content filter for a local boys and girls club. The lab has 30-40 kids ranging from 6-10 years old with only one instructer... huge liability. The thing that strikes me as wierd is that the internet is full of FREE porn, but good porn blacklists cost big bucks (well for a small town boys&girls club anyway). Most offer "grey lists" and age appropriate lists. If these politicians really want to help they would hire a good blacklisting company to provide these lists for free. Then there would be no major change in the internet and people who need to do some filtering (like childrens charities) could choose to use the filtering. dan

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...