nanog mailing list archives
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:39:39 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:19:40 -0500 From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote:CNET's extract is wrong. The article states The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.The question is is it required to be affordable? "Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service fee of $9.95/packet". I remember at a previous job trying to bypass one of these filters to determine how easy it would be (during the eval, it's kinda funny to have someone come by and say "try to reach pr0n now!"). The first person to bypass it was the one that handled postmaster@* only takes moments from a spam msg to get there.. short of having a live person (uh, isn't that called a parent?) review the material invovled, there will always be a way to bypass it, someone could hack some major content providers systems and serve out nothing but content that is restricted.. i don't see much that can be done to prevent those that truly want access to obtain it.
The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon address RBLs if handled properly. Any chance that it will block access to pr0n? No. But, within the limited parameters of the law passed, it might be workable. This is not a claim that it is a reasonable law or that it will really serve to any end-user's benefit, only that it's not a huge issue for most ISPs. Of course, if it is upheld and lots of states jump on the bandwagon with similar legislation, the scalability of the system comes into question. There is going to be much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth when parents discover that it really doesn't work and the demand goes out for something "better". They will claim that the state promised, but they won't be taking legal action against the state. :-( -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman () es net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Current thread:
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill, (continued)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Owen DeLong (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Steven J. Sobol (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill joshua sahala (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill William Allen Simpson (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Mar 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Daniel Senie (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Simon Lyall (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Petri Helenius (Mar 23)
- Message not available
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Kevin Oberman (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Rachael Treu (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Florian Weimer (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Paul G (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Rachael Treu (Mar 22)