Re: FCC wants a magic, porn-free wireless Internet

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Rupert Goodwins [rupert.goodwins () zdnet co uk]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:09 PM
To: David Farber; ip
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   FCC wants a magic, porn-free wireless Internet

I agree we're drifting here, but I can't let amateur radio's reputation as an entirely bloodless sport go unchallenged.

It's not as if there is no pornographic material on amateur radio. There's a system called SSTV - slow-scan TV - which 
is basically colour facsimile images transmitted on narrow bandwidth shortwave channels. It's very slow - slower than 
the old 300bps tape systems - and low resolution, but nonetheless it's used by some European amateurs, especially on 
the 14 MHz band, to transmit pictures of the upper torsos of unclothed women. It's the sort of thing you get in English 
tabloid newspapers, but not on American network TV -- so I have no doubt that it would be counted as pornographic by 
those who get excited by such things.

Shortwave is no respecter of borders or mores. Any teenager in Pensacola with a $50 shortwave radio and a laptop can 
receive this stuff. I can't help but feel that if this were more widely known among the teenagers of Pensacola, amateur 
radio would be somewhat less moribund.

It is not possible on any public access information distribution system to 'ban pornography', even assuming you can 
agree on what pornography is, without such extreme measures of policing such that 'public access' no longer applies.

Rupert Goodwins, G6HVY

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Sun 29/06/2008 8:18 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re:   FCC wants a magic, porn-free wireless Internet


________________________________________
From: Randy Fischer [randy.fischer () gmail com]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:47 PM
To: salex () dsalex org; David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: FCC wants a magic, porn-free wireless Internet

Dave, I think this has strayed off topic, but who knows?

Scott,

Alas, it's impossible to do historical experiments,  so this is conjecture.
But my point wasn't so much that if only pR0n had been available, Ham
would have taken off - rather, that the restrictions placed had the unfortunate
and contrary side effect that the Amateur Radio network couldn't expand.

An example:  about twenty years ago, I wanted to network two LANs
together over packet radio.  Now (as I recall) I was allowed to set up
unattended point-to-point LAN/radio routers,  but it was impractical
because of the risk of someone sending commercial or obscene
material, and I could not very well monitor it.  And of course,  encrypting
the data was strictly forbidden.  So I moved on.

-
Randy Fischer



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com