Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn 574
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.
"
I want to restrict things, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Qualifications (Score:5, Insightful)
time and time again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
One port to rule them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Qualifications (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Front-page worthy? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 to technical people" instead of "Its on Yahoo! News and its about the Intarweb so we post it"
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why it wouldn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to make the web safe for impressionable people, then create a .kids domain that is heavily censored (expensive to register a subdomain, money goes to policing it) and only allow children who are likely to be traumatised by seeing sex / violence / social commentary / intelligent conversation / whatever to browse that, at their parents discression.
Feel free to moderate this redundant, since exactly the same point was raised in all of the articles about the .xxx domain.
Porn...what porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
The xxx tld (Score:4, Insightful)
Change is in the wind (Score:4, Insightful)
Use TLDs (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, routing porn images and text through specific ports is a joke. That would take such a major reworking of our present systems that it's not even funny. But what about TLD's? I have long thought that if all porn sites (and yes, "porn" can be defined) were hosted from sites with a TLD of
Oh, and if the people who WANT porn have a problem with this, why complain? It makes it easier for you to find it. Just google site:.xxx
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Tell me again why the US should run the net? (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
It seems to me that ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Let me guess: (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure most business networks are the same. So it comes down to port 80, but there are a million ways to filter port 80. People have been making products to do that for years and years.
So whats the problem?
Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like you just reinvented the evil bit [faqs.org]!
Let's restrict religion too, then (Score:1, Insightful)
Since the original proposal comes from Utah, I hereby suggest that the bill should be amended so that all material that spreads the Mormon faith, creationist teachings, or other religiously inspired materials get relocated to port 666.
Or whatever.
Or to put it differntly: Considering that most of middle America was originally built by people who came there from Europe to escape religiously inspired persecution, how come they are so keen to reinstate it now, just because they think they have a chance to make it their particular flavor of intolerance?
Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)
-Z
Re:People should learn (Score:3, Insightful)
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. Basically, she was involved and he knew why porn was wrong, but no parent can be expected to watch every single click, nor should every parent be expected to be a computer security expert so her child can do school work.
As for b, let's consider the harm of porn to a developing boy. 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. Though he's taught about monogamy being the norm, he frequently sees people engaged in acts that clearly aren't monogamous. Though he's taught that it would be worthwhile to wait for sex, he's inundated with pictures of people who are clearly not married and usually not using protection. On a mind that's in the process of learning right from wrong and the consequences of his actions, this all can make a negative impression.
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:2, Insightful)
>> are evil assholes, suck-ups or idiots.
>That's because you live in Norway. Try living here
>to the US sometime, you'll change your opinion
>very quickly, since it's precisely the type of
>politicians we seem to get.
Only because they are a reflection of the masses who
elect them.
Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this (Score:2, Insightful)
> people, then create a
> censored (expensive to register a subdomain, money
> goes to policing it) and only allow children who
> are likely to be traumatised by seeing sex / violence
> / social commentary / intelligent conversation /
> whatever to browse that, at their parents discression.
The funny part of this is that most of the "children" who
seem to be traumatised by sex/violence/etc seem to be OVER
the age of 18. Go figure.
Re:People should learn (Score:1, Insightful)
Even someone at the age of 11 is more than capable of realizing that these people are not in a realistic situation.
Re:Tell me again why the US should run the net? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
he's got it all wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
then again, little horny hackers could memorize some IPs and bypass DNS.
Re:Great US exports (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not forget that there was a time when your childhood was over by the time you were ten. We've extended it, and invented the ludicrous notion that our children should remain 'innocent' until they're magically transported into adulthood at whatever arbitrary age reigns in your region.
We'd all be better off if parents put their time and energy into raising robust, independent, free-thinking children rather than sheltered automatons.
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't some strange artifact of a large bureaucratic system, it is by design. They're really one party, and any display to the contrary is just theatre.
Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)
And anyway, since when is sex a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting? "Hey Bill, we had a vote, fucking's out."
Sex isn't a bad thing. But have you looked at some of the crap on the internet lately? Do you really want your teenagers first impression of sex to be some woman with six inch long nails taking it up two orifices while screaming "CUM INSIDE OF ME!!!"? I highly doubt that comes remotely close to an actual representation of sex for 99% of the population.
I'm about as Liberal as they come and I don't want my kids looking at shit like that. The difference between me and this asshole is that I don't think I need the Government to raise my kids for me. Involved parents should be able to know what their kids are doing online -- without the Governments help.
Re:People should learn (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is what I would hope your aunt is trying to teach your nephew.
What does your action teach the kid? That only adults can demean women?
I'm sure you ment to help, and maybe in some way you did, but only in the sense of providing an example of helping family members. You certainly didn't tell him anything about porn, the porn industry, and why maybe you wouldn't want to vist those websites. (He already knows why he would want to vist those websites.)
The filter doesn't change how he treats women, and amazingly enough, people's sex habits don't directly correlate to behavior out side of the bedroom. (See Strom Thurmond's life for proof.)
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember there being more than two names on the ballot for president. But everybody sees that as "throwing their vote away". I ALWAYS vote for the third party. It could be hitler, ghandi, mother theresa, saddam...
And that's as stupid of a statement as the idiots who always vote party line Republican or Democrat. You'd vote for hitler (third party) against FDR (Democrat) or Abe Lincoln (Republican)?
I seem to recall their being more then one name on the ballot in the Democratic Primary. Perhaps if people hadn't been too busy to vote for "the guy we think can beat bush" they might have voted for somebody a little less stuffy then Kerry. Likewise, perhaps if Republicans cared less about staying in office and more about effective leadership, they would have run somebody against Bush.
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People should learn (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ;)
Re:Let me guess: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait...Is that prosthyletising? I never know...
Re:People should learn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.)
Re:People should learn (Score:3, Insightful)
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 forcing my viewpoints on the rest of humanity? Did you see me say that I support these laws? Did you see me say that I think pornography is immoral?
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.
Oh, give me a fricking break! In case you didn't notice I largely agree with you. You won't find me preaching the value of abstinence or waiting until marriage. That would certainly be a bit hypocritical of me (yes, AC, this is your cue to reply and say /.'ers can't have sex so I must be lying ;)
Your position does seem a bit extreme though. I make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it probably isn't a good thing for teenagers to learn about sex from pornography and you jump all over me and accuse me of being "the arbiter of sexual correctness". It probably isn't a good thing for somebody who is sexually inexperienced (as all teenagers are) to be exposed to limitless amounts of hardcore tasteless pornography. And before you accuse me of being a prude I think that most people would agree that most pornography is quite tasteless. If nothing else it will cloud their expectations of what sex should be or is like.
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.
Indeed. And I would much rather educate my kid without the help of the porn business, thank you very much. There's a reason why you need to be 18 to enter an adult store. There's also a perfectly valid reason for parents not wanting limitless amounts of internet smut (some of which is beyond disgusting) being viewed by their kids.
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 that in its own humble way, encourages people to enjoy themselves.
And I would maintain that most people would not be open to trying some of the things depicted in a lot of pornography. And this is all besides the point! I never said that you or I didn't have the right to buy porn. I never even said that I supported laws against porn no matter how well intended. I only suggested that it might not be a good thing to expose sexually immature people to hard core pornography. You obviously represent the other extreme of this argument so I don't really know why I'm wasting my time debating this with you.
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.
That's nice. Again, why is it even relevant to the point that I was trying to make?
Re:I want to restrict things, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's rhetoric if it's a bunch of words that are used to get people on your side when you have no intention of actually doing anything about the issues in question. Yes, people care about those issues. That's why the two parties use those issues. But there's a difference between talking about an issue, and actually doing something about it.
Like you aren't using rhetoric to scare people away from voting for a major party candidate they like?
Am I? I certainly didn't intend to do so. You can vote for whoever you like. I'm just pointing out that voting for either of the major parties will produce effectively the same result. If you like that result, then, by all means, vote for them.
Whether or not you'd agree with it there are major differences between the two parties.
Asserting that something is so doesn't make it so. You claim there are major differences. I say there aren't. You point to "policy differences". I claim that those are a smokescreen, because none of them turn into legislation, nor are they likely to any time soon. Show me real, major differences between the actual legislation produced by the two major parties. Don't just claim that there's a difference, without providing any proof that there is one.
Re:Let me guess: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone should tell the President!
Re:Porn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People should learn (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes, well, if it hadn't been for that ridiculous "loving sex" thing you tossed steaming on the floor, I would have. :-)
Even if most people would agree, that still does not give them the right to say that others should conform to their preconceptions. What is tasteless to you may be tasteful to me, and vice-versa. Personally, I find sex intriguing and often beautiful. I have a huge amount of fun with it, and I appreciate that others enjoy it in their own ways, whatever those are. The only "hot buttons" internal to the issue I have are informed consent and safety. Other than that, I know better than to think it's any of my business to be critical, unless someone is attempting to step on my own toes.
So? Does that somehow give an imprimatur to your vision of "loving sex"?
And I disagree, just as you surmise. Sexuality isn't "hard core" behavior, it is natural, inevitable, and frankly beautiful and interesting. Hiding it from kids (while letting them watch murder, assault, theft, teaching them entirely unsubstantiated tripe about mythological entities and events) is simple prudery, in my view. Kids ride snowboards. You can do that relatively safely. Some people ride snowboards off of cliffs onto avalanche-prone slopes (there's a movie coming out about this very thing, in fact, this spring.) Is it a terrible thing to let those snow-boarding kids see that movie? Will they all immediately decide that's the norm, and go out and leap off ledges? Even though they are the "snow-boarding immature"? The fact is that sexual immaturity is something you resolve with experience and education. Movies are one way to show them the length and breadth of sexuality without having them actually do, yet letting them think about it. When you're a sexual prude, this will frighten you. That's fine for you, and you can in turn inflict your prudery on your kids. My position is that you, and people like you, don't get to inflict it on mine.
The text you are referring to there related to the idea of safety; you brought up coprophilia. Which is, in my evaluation, an unsafe behavior, and indeed, a talk with your kid, as you said, would be called for. I was lumping (heh) coprophilia in with unprotected sex because in the normal context (that is, outside of a movie depicting sex) this can be unsafe behavior as well. Perhaps I was mistaken in that you identified coprophilia as the problem; I confess I did jump to a conclusion, perhaps you are a fan of coprophilia. Was there something else in that scene that had you motivated to talk to your child? Multiple participants, perhaps?
Re:tissue? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise.
Currently, I manage this by ensuring that I am there when they surf. I am perfectly ready to admit this is more difficult than having someone lock all religious material away from their eyes. That, however, does not (in my opinion) so much solve a problem as it does cause one: Now they know nothing about it, and they're going to be curious, and probably chase it down when I am not around. Still, I'd have more free time, and that has value, even if gained at the expense of my children's ability to deal with reality.
So: If you want porn put on a particular port, I want religion put on its own port as well.
Now, if you don't like that: Why exactly should your failure to monitor your children's activities on the Internet have priority over my failure to do so?
On the other hand, If you do like that: exactly how many things offensive to some segment of the population shall we lock away on specific ports so it is "easy" for parents to opt out? There are millions of issues, and only 65536 ports. So there's a practical issue as well as an administrative one.
Finally, why is software like "Net Nanny" not a reasonable answer if you want to censor your child's network experience? Why is ghettoizing better?