Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Utah law _already_ means no links to Planned Parenthood et alia. Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah. Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff you're seeing is either: 1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to how Native Americans need to be escorted by police in Massachussetts (i.e. they never got around to fixing old bad law, but noone cares anymore) 2) political posturing by elected officials (also relatively common in other parts of the world. c.f. US Congress, both parties) 3) Something which, while it COULD be extended to mean something ridiculous, will NOT be. For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah, they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to, but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms - if you prick them, they'll bleed... so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. -David Barak need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Well, here's an update: Utah Internet Porn Law May Face Challenge By The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY - Internet service providers that operate in Utah must offer customers a way to block porn sites under a law signed this week. ISPs complained that the law adds nothing to the fight against pornography, and said a legal challenge is likely. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyncid=1212e=3u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_hi_te/internet_pornsid=95573501 - ferg -- David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. Right! Not everyone needs or wants plain old raw Internet access. That is a commodity service which appealed to the early adopters who were technically literate. But in order to make the Internet into a true universal utility which is connected everywhere, all of the time, we need to develop some value-added services in addition to the plain-jane commodity access. So far most product innovation has come about by applying different types of technology to the last mile access and to the network core. Or by subtracting from the standard bundle of services offered by ISPs in 1995. Now it is time for people to look at adding to the plain-jane access service. One way to do this is by supplying managed (or partially managed) boxes to subscribers in their premises. SIP-based telephony services are an example of this. Most SIP-phones are partially managed boxes that call home when they are reset to download some config info. Most ISPs offer managed access or VPN services where the CPE router and/or firewall is managed by the ISP. Shifting the managed service into the ISP premises rather than the customer premises is not a big deal from the technology point of view and enables an ISP to provide more solid guarantees of security to the customer. This is especially appealing to home users since the home environment is generally less secure than a corporate environment where IT rooms and telecom closets are locked and access-controlled. The Internet services business has gotten rather too conservative lately. Where is the innovation gone? Why are so many people in the business satisfied to rest on their laurels and point to their accomplishments back in the 90's? I would have thought, that tough economic times would spur people to greater innovation not less. --Michael Dillon
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to how Native Americans need to be escorted by police in Massachussetts (i.e. they never got around to fixing old bad law, but noone cares anymore) Actually, Indian towns were goverened by Blue Laws up the second half of the 20th century. Not every law against snowfall was enforced at all times, but one shouldn't infer that all laws relating to fallend snow were moot for all time.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
David Barak wrote: Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah. Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff you're seeing is either: 1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to ... Don't know about Utah, but do know about Michigan: 1998 Aug 15 -- 24-year-old computer programmer hit a rock with his canoe. Began cussing. Charged with a 19th century law banning profanity within earshot of women and children. Convicted by jury. Took 4 years to overturn on appeal. Tens of thousands of dollars. Is only 1 of many such cases across the country that the ACLU has fought. So, I wouldn't bank on unenforceable 2) political posturing by elected officials (also relatively common in other parts of the world. c.f. US Congress, both parties) I've previously written here about RECENT Michigan laws on sex between unmarried persons, called lascivious conduct here (as opposed to fornication in Utah). And just like RECENT Utah, Michigan has RECENTLY enacted clearly unconstitutional laws on abortion, in the hopes that some future Supreme Court will reverse Roe v Wade, at which time all those invalid laws will become operative. 3) Something which, while it COULD be extended to mean something ridiculous, will NOT be. Great! If you truly believe this, just volunteer to be the test case. All you have to do is host a computer site, and refuse to label the content. Heck, AFAICT, a FTP-only site would be a good case. Or simply refuse to offer the blocking service. I'm assuming that you really operate an ISP in Utah. And that you are willing to spend some time in jail at various times, have $10,000 or so for bail, and a few $100,000 for attorney fees -- none of which you'll get back even should you win. I've spent time in jail on principle. I'm glad to see others are still willing to stand up and be counted! For the rest of you, wouldn't it just be cheaper and more cost effective to send some money to CDT? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
David Barak wrote: snip For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah, they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to, but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms - if you prick them, they'll bleed... From their hands, and feet, like in Stigmata ? Remind me not to visit Utah, on Easter. :} FWIW, they are doing articles right now, on how the evangelicals, thanks to Faith Based Initiative are using the money funneled into them, and their new close associations, to influence policy in US Government. So much for the Wall of Separation. :\ Prepare for a lot more of it to come down the road. The Schiavo case is a great example. From a legal standpoint, they have -nothing- to stand on... 20 judges have said so. The parents gave up, and signed the right of attorney over to the husband, years ago. End of _legal_ story. But, this administration, and a mob of RRR, don't really care about the law, as much as appearances, and grandstanding. So, the _exact_same_man_ who signed into law the Governments right to pop the plug on the poor, _irrespective_ of the wishes of the caregiver, -or- family, is leading the mob with pitchforks against just such an action. Go Figure. Like I said, The Moral Majority were Neither. so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. If there is a demand for the service, someone will be _more_ than happy to sell it to them, however, you -don't- need a law, just the demand. Just think, anyone who tries to offer this service, if he were to have an error, or a mistake, will face criminal charges, as well as the potential Civil Lawsuit, similar to Vonage. Double Jeopardy for trying to do the right thing. And something else to remember about those Blue Laws, they are usually old and antiquated.. not, passed in the last 6 months. Who would have thought the Dark Ages would have a revival, post 2000 ? -David Barak need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm assuming that you really operate an ISP in Utah. And that you are willing to spend some time in jail at various times, have $10,000 or so for bail, and a few $100,000 for attorney fees -- none of which you'll get back even should you win. wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply get a lawyer and an engineer in the same room and brainstorm until you came up with something which pretty-much-worked(tm) and was at least arguably compliant with the law? There have been a couple of ideas bandied about on this list which are arguably compliant and technically simple. I've spent time in jail on principle. I'm glad to see others are still willing to stand up and be counted! This isn't a principle for which I'd gladly go to jail.All I'm saying is that it isn't the doomgloom you're portraying - Utah politicians being difficult doesn't mean the end of free speech forever. Why not wait and see what happens? -David Barak need Geek-rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:12:33PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. or vice versa. Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct. Defending *palatable* speech is unremarkable. -- me Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:48:00AM -0800, David Barak wrote: if you prick them, they'll bleed... What color? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
David Barak wrote: wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply get a lawyer and an engineer in the same room and brainstorm until you came up with something which pretty-much-worked(tm) and was at least arguably compliant with the law? There have been a couple of ideas bandied about on this list which are arguably compliant and technically simple. Why would any person in their right mind comply with an unconstitutional law? This isn't a principle for which I'd gladly go to jail.All I'm saying is that it isn't the doomgloom you're portraying - Utah politicians being difficult doesn't mean the end of free speech forever. Why not wait and see what happens? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tuesday 22 Mar 2005 7:37 pm, Dan Hollis wrote: somehow I suspect more than just pr0n sites will end up in that 'adult content registry'. dont be suprised if sites critical of mormonism get blocked too. they can be as bad as scientologists in this respect. Cynic. Porn alone will do enough damage. I use to resell one of the firewall with a blocker option, and one site decided to actually buy it. When we enabled blocking of Adult content dejanews (as it was then) disappeared, which caused some consternation - what no comp.sys.* archive. After some questioning, it became apparent it was because it also archived alt.sex.* - urm right.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. Once Utah ISPs come up with a good way to do this, I suspect there will be a market for such services elsewhere in the USA as well. And while the law focuses on the blocking aspect, i.e. blacklisting, let's not forget that the same service can also be used in a whitelisting mode. Can you imagine an Internet service in which parents subscribe to various channels by choosing from a menu of whitelists? I can. This is not your father's Internet any more... --Michael Dillon
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Daniel Senie wrote: Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites would, I think, would be a measured response to idiot legislators. It could be give Utah the Finger Day or some such. The world has been wait for a list of Florida IPs for a while so we can block them for a few years, no such luck however. On a more practical note one possible solution to a similar I heard was to ensure that their blocking service (offered at no extra cost) just gave people a rfc1918 address could *only* access a page explaining how all the nasty sites were now blocked. It can be called the do nothing account or similar. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. The problem is the state isn't specifying that ISP's provide some software module that the state wrote to accomplish this, instead what they are doing is telling a transport provider they must provide something other than transport, they must provide some unspecified piece of software. It's like if parents required the state provide some piece of hardware to prevent kids from speeding in their cars because the state provides the roads. Geo.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Simon Lyall wrote: The world has been wait for a list of Florida IPs for a while so we can block them for a few years, no such luck however. ip2location.com would be happy to sell you just such a list. Pete On a more practical note one possible solution to a similar I heard was to ensure that their blocking service (offered at no extra cost) just gave people a rfc1918 address could *only* access a page explaining how all the nasty sites were now blocked. It can be called the do nothing account or similar.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why other businesses? For example, no drug companies or pharmacies can have their businesses in Utah; they sell contraceptives, and generate information too sensitive for the tender eyes of minors. This is not correct - on network TV in utah, and on the family-friendly cableco feed, you can see the various prophylactic manufacturers' ads. Many of the statements I've seen here are very doom and gloom about Utah - honestly, folks, it's not THAT bad. -David Barak need geek rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites would, I think, would be a measured response to idiot legislators. It could be give Utah the Finger Day or some such. Wouldn't you then be guilty of doing the exact thing which the legislature is doing? Besides any discussion regarding collusion or anticompetitive behavior, how does this type of action improve free speech? Personally, I WANT everyone in Utah to get to my content. -David Barak need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Oki all, Over the holidays I had the opportunity to pick up some pin money experting for a case involving just this business model and the media ignored sides of some rather well-known persons who work the church markets in the US. that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. In the instance of policy and mechanism I reviewed, this was deinstall AOL and all others, install name withheld pending, stuff some obscure bits into hidden files on DOS boxen to prevent replay with a possibly different permissible policy threshold, and prompt the adult/user/owner/installer for threshold definition. Clunky, IMHO, because the step after mistake is reinstall OEM os, but tastes vary. Once Utah ISPs come up with a good way to do this, I suspect there will be a market for such services elsewhere in the USA as well. In the instance of policy and mechanism I reviewed, this was interpose a proxy on all http methods, and evalute some property of some of object according to some rule(s). If permissible (above), forward to the edge, if not, do something else. It could have been localized ad insertion, or bandwidth aware content frobbing, instead of ... what it was. Is it easy as a business proposition? Everything was on the rising side of the bubble. On the falling side of the bubble even AOL had to work its numbers. With more moralists dominant in public policy, market plans that replace public morality policy with private morality policies seem to me to be less likely to penetrate the high morality affinity-based markets than when less moralists dominant in public policy. To paraphrase my friend Bill, why would the little asshats settle for a private Idaho or Utah when the big asshats have promissed them the whole enchilada? Anyway, it was presents for the kiddies and some of the winter's heating oil, and I now know more about some people than I wanted to. Eric
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:53:29PM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote: It can be called the do nothing account or similar. Wouldn't that be know nothing? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, pashdown wrote: In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business. We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software are open for editing and inspection is the reason I chose this over other commercial methods. What is the plan -- if any -- to deal with the hosting of the porn sites on the computers of the people who they're supposed to be blocked from? What I'm referring to is the occasional spammer tactic of downloading web site contents into a hijacked Windows box (zombie) and then using either redirectors, or rapidly-updating DNS, or just plain old IP addresses in URIs to send HTTP traffic there. This seems to be a tactic of choice on those occasions when the content is of a dubious nature: kiddie porn, warez, credit card numbers, identity theft tools, that sort of thing. Even *detecting* such things is difficult, especially when they're transient in nature and hosted on boxes with dynamic IP addresses. So how is any ISP going to be able to block customer X from a web site that's on customer X's own system? Or on X's neighbor Y's system? Oh...and then we get into P2P distribution mechanisms. How is any ISP supposed to block content which is everywhere and nowhere? ---Rsk
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Rich Kulawiec wrote: Oh...and then we get into P2P distribution mechanisms. How is any ISP supposed to block content which is everywhere and nowhere? This would only be possible by whitelisting content, which is not what most would accept. (although there are countries where this is the norm, but their citizens are not exactly happy with the norm either) With technologies which do pseudonymous random routing over tunnel broker service, applet brought to you similarly to Flash or Shockwave plugin, intrusive technologies become even harder to implement reliably. And it's probably the older kids who use this technology before the ISP or the parents. The numbers are still in thousands, but in the P2P world, going from minority to majority is 12 to 18 months. Pete
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, David Barak wrote: --- Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites Wouldn't you then be guilty of doing the exact thing which the legislature is doing? Any such action would have to be voluntary. You couldn't force it on your end-users or customers. -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. Are you absolutely sure that that's all the bill will actually do? -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. To Quote Peter Tolan (Cowriter of the TV Show Rescue me) on another censorship issue: The idea that government feels they have to regulate this stuff because the people they're governing can't turn it off is insulting Why is it the ISP's responsibility to assume an operational burden of enforcing the religious morality of one group? I think the phrase Chilling effect has been used in this thread previously, and I believe it was apt. If there's a demand to an alternative internet service by, for example, Mormons, why not start an ISP with filtering, and offer it? Niche businesses service narrow segments of the market have been very successful, even if they charge slightly more, based on their specialized appeal. If aol/comcast/rboc/etc see that they are loosing customers to competition, they may choose to offer similar services or choose to let the customers go.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
One thing to note, from the news.com story on this: Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Huntsman 'doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge.' This could be interpreted as We know this is going to be shot down, and the governor doesn't really care, as long as we appeared to be 'doing something' about internet porn... -C On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Paul G wrote: - Original Message - From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. if they made it publically accessible, added user ratings and thumbnails for entries and stuck a few affiliate banners for some of the popular sites up top, i'd bet they'd be *making* money. oh wait, someone's already done that.. -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote: What is the plan -- if any -- to deal with the hosting of the porn sites on the computers of the people who they're supposed to be blocked from? What I'm referring to is the occasional spammer tactic of downloading web site contents into a hijacked Windows box (zombie) and then using either redirectors, or rapidly-updating DNS, or just plain old IP addresses in URIs to send HTTP traffic there. This seems to be a tactic of choice on those occasions when the content is of a dubious nature: kiddie porn, warez, credit card numbers, identity theft tools, that sort of thing. That's simple: just block inbound access to port 80 on the customer machines! Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
David Barak wrote: This is not correct - on network TV in utah, and on the family-friendly cableco feed, you can see the various prophylactic manufacturers' ads. Remember, this is about minors. I'm no expert on the Utah code, but a simple search showed: (1) It's illegal to offer contraceptive services to minors. (2) It's illegal to counsel minors about such services. (3) If they even ask, you're required to report them, and it's a criminal offense to fail to report them. So, Utah law _already_ means no links to Planned Parenthood et alia. Note well, everything about sex between unmarried persons (of any age) is illegal fornication. So those contraceptive ads had better have strict showing of married persons (Probably not well enforced.) In addition, the abortion section is egregiously unconstitutional, and they know it. So, they actually include sections on reversion when it's found unconstitutional -- but only by the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to keep trying for the years waiting on appeals. (See the rest of Title 76 chapter 7 Offenses against the Family.) And for those of you who actually read the new law, you'll notice that it prohibits pornography on-line. Anything, at any age. Blatantly unconstitutional (legally, only obscenity and actual child molestation can be prohibited -- and child means prepubescent). Note that the chapters on Offenses Against Family (7), Decency (9), and Morals (10) are more than 3 times as long as Property (6, which has all the usual stuff that most people think of as crime). Many of the statements I've seen here are very doom and gloom about Utah - honestly, folks, it's not THAT bad. Maybe not to the general public, but how do you get past all the bedroom peepers? Did you know your legislators were doing all this? And did you think about how this affects the Internet? Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. Are you absolutely sure that that's all the bill will actually do? Obviously, Dillon didn't read Bellovin's pointers to the actual law. rant Folks, the Internet as we know it would not have existed had not certain persons (such as me) volunteered at their local political campaigns and made regular contact with their local politicians and political parties. Get off your behinds, and work on politics. That means going to a lot of meetings, and making phone calls, and writing letters. Not just on presidential election years, but all the time! It's important! (And besides, it's a good start on a social life for you desk jockeys.) The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. or vice versa. Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct. http://www.freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm /rant And make sure your companies are funding CDT.org, EFF.org, and EPIC.org! -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On March 23, 2005 at 10:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by their children because the process of filtering takes place entirely outside the home. I assume one can opt out of this statutory filtering voluntarily. What's to stop their children (think teens not infants) from doing that as easily as they might disable a local filter? Ok, require ISPs to figure out how to secure against that, password management or whatever. Oh good, another arms race as kids pass around how to by-pass the filters at school...I know, use unlimited national cell rates to dial an out of state ISP. Or find a remote proxy to use. etc. It's not very hard, and if one kid figures it out the others just have to follow the formula. I have a better idea, why doesn't the Utah legislature just outlaw cancer. Wouldn't that do a lot more people a lot more good? Are those lawmakers in favor of people, CHILDREN!, suffering and dying of cancer? Shame on them! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool Die| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad? Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review... pgpkvAIZ1VGPP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and was signed by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then? -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Scott Weeks wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. :P scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:18:57AM -1000, Scott Weeks said something to the effect of: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. scott Agreed. I'm thinking...this *might* (big, fat, bloated, grinning *might*) have a shot if Internet Service Provider referred to the party offering up subscribers to an Internet requesting user service, or if Internet access described access the Internet initiated, configured, and maintained to unwitting users' homes and businesses. When the connection is forged the other way around, the more logical... nay, undeniably less absurd and nonsensical prescription seems to be a firewall, subscription-based service, local DNS black/whitelisting, or some such other solution. If you don't know how to use those things, ask someone who does. Unlike other ills posed to some by connectivity, I know of no can-porn legistlation or other successful do-not-pr0n list. I don't think that demanding that the Internet clean up its act is going to pack much of a punch. your pr0n may vary, --ra -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:55:21AM -0800, John Kinsella said something to the effect of: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. I always assumed it was working fine and we were sending the Crazies to Utah. Get demented, early and often! whee, --ra -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
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. Roy Engehausen Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill 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. does pulling the plug on the user's connection count? g your honor, we were just making sure our sinners^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers couldn't access lecherous content that hasn't made it onto the registry! -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
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. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. - jared Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially they (the ISP) has to do it, huh? Remember, this _is_ Utah we're atlking about here... - ferg -- Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Roy Engehausen
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy said something to the effect of: 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. Isn't that demanding that an ISP provide, free of charge, a managed firewall service? I might be expecting too much, but wouldn't it stand to reason that link-chasing and downloading inherently constitute a request *to* receive content? At the risk of sounding like a proponent for public indecency snicker if Junior or Hubby or Wifey or whomever is hoarding porn and must be protected/stopped/brought back into the fold, I don't think it's really the responsibility of the ISP to care. Note to Utah (tm)*: the pervasion of perversion is nigh! ;) Buy a firewall and keep an eye on your kids. Neither the schools nor the ISPs are meant to raise them. bah, --ra *UT is OK with me. The disgruntled ramblings in here refer only to those whining to the ISPs to save them from their own Internet connection. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. Roy Engehausen Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: C|Net: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines. http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- k. rachael treu, CISSP[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Bill Woodcock wrote: 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. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! So, it is voluntary on _both_ sides, _and_ it was made into a _law_ ? Can anyone confirm this ? Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs. Taking the assumption that we have all decided that Utah has asked us to do something that cannot definitively be done, it seems to me that the folks who offer ISP services in Utah need to decide what in fact can be done. I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of the search engines is a good thing. That said, not all such do, so one is forced to have a plan B. BTW, HTML PICS don't especially help with virus-bot-originated spam. It seems to me that a simple approach would be to provide a second DNS service in parallel with the first, and advise Utah that if it would be so kind as to inform us of the DNS names of the spam services that they want treated specially, those names will be put into the new DNS service as the address of this system is 127.0.0.1. Customers can now decide which kind of DNS service they want. Alternatively, and better perhaps for dealing with the email issues, one could put two VRFs on every router - one that has full routes and one that has a number of null routes. If the State of Utah would be so kind as to specify the list of prefixes to be null-routed... The key thing here is to provide a service that in fact works for some definition of that term, and tell Utah that unfunded mandates don't especially help. They have the power to pass any law they want, but in context they have an obligation to the SPs affected to provide an objective way to determine whether the SP is in compliance, and by extension, to provide a reasonable definition of and way to implement the service.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:19:40 -0500 From: Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of: It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for that matter. I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured, even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if anything else slips through like pesky news or children's pages or something icky. Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to refuse me this service? sniff --ra ;) -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine writes: Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs. The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
thanks steve. i'm distracted. just got bit by red lake.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Baker Fred wrote: I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of the search engines is a good thing. That said, not all such do, so one is forced to have a plan B. BTW, HTML PICS don't especially help with virus-bot-originated spam. Internet Explorer has had provisions to use RSAC ratings forever. One thing that the competing browsers (which I like better) have *never* had. -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:= : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : : and search engines. : : : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top : : : Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. : : Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad? : Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Paul G wrote: : perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and : wassigned by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then? Ok, passing wasn't the correct term. IANAL. Here's what I saw: I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law. and A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year. That is what I meant, but it has been pointed out that this extract is not accurate anyway. Damn journalists... :-) scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Oberman writes: 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. That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20050307cdtanalysis.pdf --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
* Steven M. Bellovin: The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm Given that the bill tries to outlaw the distribution of pornography (which means that it won't withstand judicial review), I think it's astonishingly ISP-friendly. For example, it doesn't seem to make you responsible for transit traffic in general, like many ISP contracts do. 8-)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
(Apparently I am more movd by the topic of saving porn than I ever imagined... ;) ) On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:39:39AM -0800, Kevin Oberman said something to the effect of: ..snip snip.. 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. In my opinion... Actually, it still is pretty onerous, just not as bad as what was suggested in the former interpretation. Having come from the ISP pool myself, I wouldn't want to have to manage this list. Unlike bogons and RBLs, this sort of thing isn't deployed globally, and would have to be managed inconsistently across interfaces of those who request it. Who will handle the requests? Who will deploy the changes? Should large ISPs' core networking teams be handling requests directly from customers? Will the same teams managing the requests be called in during major infrastructure changes that might impact the deployment of such a solution? What liability will the ISP have if the block list is mistakenly removed from a requester's inteface? All very basic (and far from being a completel list) that suggest lost man hours to deploy and maintain. Perhaps if the government is interested in taking such a matter into its own hands, an agency should be tasked with managing firewall services for these customers, at its own (read: taxpayer :( ) cost. If governing bodies are even going to *try* to legislate morality in this realm, they are going to have to fund at least part of it, I would think... --ra 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 -- K. rachael treu, CISSP[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites containing material harmful to minors... ...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year 2005-06 only, to establish the adult content registry... They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rachael Treu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:35 AM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: Richard Irving; Roy; Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of: It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. -Bill What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for that matter. I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured, even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if anything else slips through like pesky news or children's pages or something icky. Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to refuse me this service? sniff --ra ;) -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. if they made it publically accessible, added user ratings and thumbnails for entries and stuck a few affiliate banners for some of the popular sites up top, i'd bet they'd be *making* money. oh wait, someone's already done that.. -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 -0600, Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. Call the filtering program SCOwl... -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 22 11:38:22 2005 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. You may have _thought_ you were making a wry joke. I'm *NOT* so sure. Can/may, and shall/will _are_ terms of legal art, with precise _legal_ meanings, Notably, the former terms denote discretionary actions, while the latter ones denote mandatory actions. The RFC 'conventional' usage derives from the _legal_ meanings of those terms. The Utah statute is bad law, and is _highly_unlikely_ to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Because it is the _government_ that is compiling, maintaining, and distributing the banned list. The chilling effect on 'free speech' argument is nearly certain to succeed. That _aside_, the may not language, as opposed to shall not, looks like a *major* goof on the part of those who drafted the legislation. One might argue that the 'legislative intent' was to make the action mandatory on the part of the service provider, but that would be a *difficult* 'sell' to the courts - considering the *long* history of the distinct, disjoint, meanings of can/may and shall/will. For any potentially affected provider, it is *definitely* worth running the idea past one's professional legal counsel -- if the law says we 'may not' do this, does that mean it is at our option, or is it mandatory?
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Paul G said something to the effect of: - Original Message - From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. if they made it publically accessible, added user ratings and thumbnails for entries and stuck a few affiliate banners for some of the popular sites up top, i'd bet they'd be *making* money. oh wait, someone's already done that.. Woohoo! A new pr0n-meta-index! A $$-maker, indeed. pr0n.gov --ra -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially they (the ISP) has to do it, huh? Providing filtering software at no additional cost is sufficient.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote: They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Well maybe they're just trying to justify their... uh... research. w
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 CST, Kathryn Kessey said: Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. You've got rational, religious, and an implied politics all in the same sentence. Other than that, it would be a better idea, yes... pgpPaWSWgiucz.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Kathryn Kessey wrote: ...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites containing material harmful to minors... ...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year 2005-06 only, to establish the adult content registry... They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. somehow I suspect more than just pr0n sites will end up in that 'adult content registry'. dont be suprised if sites critical of mormonism get blocked too. they can be as bad as scientologists in this respect. -Dan
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. Can ISPs get around this by declaring themselves to be private clubs? ;) There was a rather poorly attended NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City a couple years ago. Between bars, er, private clubs, that required (very cheap) memberships to get in the door, the no more than one watered down beer on the table at a time rule, the guys who looked like secret service agents video taping the the gay pride people (all three of them...) outside the Temple, and the repeated you want to rent a car? On a Sunday?!? responses from people in the viscinity of the closed car rental counters, it was a cultural expeience. Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. Ignoring the legal and commercial questions and focusing on the technical requirements, there are several ways they could have done this. China and Saudi Arabia accomplish this (China for political content, and Saudi Arabia for porn) with national firewalls. So, if the same content were going to be blocked for all users in Utah, and if porn sites could somehow be prevented from operating in Utah, a monopoly transit proivder for all Utah ISPs with a big porn blocking firewall in front of it might do the trick. I hear it works in Saudi Arabia... But in this case, Utah hasn't chosen to use China or Saudi Arabia as its model, nor have they copied the first round of attempts at this sort of thing by various US states, which tended to give ISPs the burden of figuring out whether packets flowing through their network were indecent and imposed requirements on people in other states. I suspect this will make Utah different enough that a lot of national networks will decide it's not worth doing business there. But for Utah-focused ISPs who can figure out how to make a firewall or proxy server speak the same protocol as the state-run database, this should be an opportunity to charge higher prices in the face of reduced competition. This seems like something that could be implemented on a per-user basis with a little bit of policy based routing. Is it a good idea? Certainly not. Is it legal? I hope not. But is it so badly conceived as to be unimplementable if it ever gets to the enforcement stage? I don't think so. -Steve
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- Original Message - From: Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill --- snip --- Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. i think i remember hearing about a municipal fast-e man and ftth deployment in salt lake city. who needs 100meg for dictionary.com lookups? ;] -p --- paul galynin
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
on 3/22/05 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: 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. According to the bill: (3)(b)(i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider may not charge a consumer for blocking material or providing software under this section, except that a service provider may increase the cost to all subscribers to the service provider's services to recover the cost of complying with this section. (3)(b)(ii) A service provider with fewer than 7,500 subscribers may charge a consumer for providing software under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) if the charge does not exceed the service provider's cost for the software. -Richard
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Steve Gibbard said something to the effect of: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point. Can ISPs get around this by declaring themselves to be private clubs? ;) Good point..! Could they charge a membership fee and be forgiven compliance? Because ISPs certainly don't reap the government bail-outs or assurances (yet) that are afforded to public utilities, either... Regulated as public, levied against as private...where *is* the safe zone or loophole for ISPs? :? speculative_musing I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can be applied to the rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to accommodate other categories of information deemed to be objectionable. (I haven't yet read the complete bill, but will be interested to see how clearly codified the parameters for branding content as adult are.) On the other hand...what doors will this open for the converse...for entities who wish to have the government step in and mandate that the ISPs restrict delivery of content *from* them, of their content, or of content to others? This hydra could have many heads...one that looks like the DMCA, one like the RIAA, one that looks like pr0n-haters not wanting anyone to view it, one for each religious or political zealot group out there, one for each brand name... Poorly-conceived bills like this may set precedent for a number of slippery slopes. /speculative_musing How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? --ra There was a rather poorly attended NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City a couple years ago. Between bars, er, private clubs, that required (very cheap) memberships to get in the door, the no more than one watered down beer on the table at a time rule, the guys who looked like secret service agents video taping the the gay pride people (all three of them...) outside the Temple, and the repeated you want to rent a car? On a Sunday?!? responses from people in the viscinity of the closed car rental counters, it was a cultural expeience. Regardless of the legal and technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem inconsistent. Ignoring the legal and commercial questions and focusing on the technical requirements, there are several ways they could have done this. China and Saudi Arabia accomplish this (China for political content, and Saudi Arabia for porn) with national firewalls. So, if the same content were going to be blocked for all users in Utah, and if porn sites could somehow be prevented from operating in Utah, a monopoly transit proivder for all Utah ISPs with a big porn blocking firewall in front of it might do the trick. I hear it works in Saudi Arabia... But in this case, Utah hasn't chosen to use China or Saudi Arabia as its model, nor have they copied the first round of attempts at this sort of thing by various US states, which tended to give ISPs the burden of figuring out whether packets flowing through their network were indecent and imposed requirements on people in other states. I suspect this will make Utah different enough that a lot of national networks will decide it's not worth doing business there. But for Utah-focused ISPs who can figure out how to make a firewall or proxy server speak the same protocol as the state-run database, this should be an opportunity to charge higher prices in the face of reduced competition. This seems like something that could be implemented on a per-user basis with a little bit of policy based routing. Is it a good idea? Certainly not. Is it legal? I hope not. But is it so badly conceived as to be unimplementable if it ever gets to the enforcement stage? I don't think so. -Steve -- k. rachael treu, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- Rachael Treu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: speculative_musing I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can be applied to the rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to accommodate other categories of information deemed to be objectionable. (I haven't yet read the complete bill, but will be interested to see how clearly codified the parameters for branding content as adult are.) Disclaimer: I lived in and around Salt Lake City for 10 years, no I'm not Mormon, and I have always thought that Utah is the best place in the world to get a flat tire, becuase everyone will fall all overthemselves to help you. That said, I've seen this kind of thing from Utah politicians before - they were some of the driving factors behind the V-Chip and in mandating that cablecos offered a service which was all the channels except those which regularly show adult content, which, believe it or not, was not common when they offered it. I would be VERY surprised if they also added any (non-pr0n) other topics to this block-list. There is a strong distinction made in UT between pr0n and everything else: no one ever tried to expand the concept wrt the cablecos to any of the other objectionable things they may show. I remember when The Last Temptation of Christ showed in a movie theatre there, so they're not so bad as it may at first seem. How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of children in Utah, and they've had some success in restricting other public displays of adult activities (believe it or not, there used to be strip clubs within 4 blocks of the mormon temple there - the city council rezoned, and they moved 3 miles downroad). David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com NEW ALBUM, The Sound and the Furry available at http://www.cdbaby.com/thefranchise __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote: They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Well maybe they're just trying to justify their... uh... research. Movie Day at the Supreme Court: http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00982/008860/title/Subject/topic/Constitutional%20Law_First%20Amendment%20-%20Freedom%20of%20Speech/filename/constitutionallaw_1_86 Cheers, -- jr 'sorry bout the ugly link' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator. Or two. --me
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: The news.com article links to the bill: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm Steven M. Bellovin wrote: That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at http://www.cdt.org/speech/20050307cdtanalysis.pdf --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Thankfully, Steve's on the ball, and folks should read those. Presumably, every ISP is a financial supporter of EFF and CDT. If not, now's the time! But the bill goes a lot farther than reported. (1) It takes current Utah prohibition on pornography and raises the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. Every ISP operator can look forward to MONTHS and YEARS (instead of the previous 7 days) in jail. (2) It adds harmful to minors -- and makes it a state attorney general decision on whatever that might be. This is a silly nebulous term that has been used lately by the peeping tom religious right, because every other legal term they've tried has already been struck down by the courts. Just like shrub's administration made up the new term enemy combatants instead of the old term prisoner of war. AFAIK, no court has ever found ANYTHING to be harmful to minors. Making this an attorney general decision is an attempt at bypassing public hearings. Note the list itself will be access restricted electronic format -- that is, secret. (3) A new criminal penalty for a content provider's failure to properly rate content. Looks like every hosting provider will have to leave the state. You'll probably have to shut down all outside access to any universities, schools, and libraries. And every corporation will need to move it's data and web presence out of state. (4) Every ISP will have to make sure they have fewer than 7500 customers, because that's the level at which you can charge them for the millions it's going to cost to defend your lawsuits. Presumably, you can do this by creating separate subsidiaries. Alert your CEOs now. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway? Any bill with anti-pornography as its title is going to be a freight train in the Utah legislature. Nobody is going to get in front of it for fear of being portrayed as pro-pornography. I knew this sobering fact early on in the life of this bill. In its original form, it would have used IP addresses for blocking and would have introduced criminal penalties on ISPs if anything managed to slip by. Regardless of whether the ISP's filter was being circumvented or not. The bill's sponsor was good in working with me, the only ISP here that knew or was willing to come out against the bill. However, I was well aware that all I could strive for was to reduce the ISP impact of the bill, not make large deletions or changes. There were also a handful of individuals here who had direct experience with commercial software who were appalled at the nature of the bill and also worked against it. Large nationwide ISPs, who were involved in discussions early on, were strangely silent, instead letting the Internet Alliance write a letter for them. I do not believe the Attorney General's office here knows what they are signing up for. You may remember they had a porn-czar a few years back whose position was dissolved over lack of funding. Somehow the AG believes that maintaining and arbitrating an Internet blacklist will be easier and cheaper. In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business. We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software are open for editing and inspection is the reason I chose this over other commercial methods. This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. Please do not generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a select few.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
pashdown wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: snip This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates, but the Politicians. Please do not generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a select few. The Moral Majority were Neither.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues. yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks lucy for the reference to http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=113 and these things seem to play out in the courts, not the mailing lists. yawn randy
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
The Utah governor's name is Jon Huntsman. Use the word huntsman as new slang for some sexual act which would make a dead man blush until people demand that any site using the word huntsman be blocked. -Name Withheld By Request
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Owen --On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:18 AM -0800 Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpSaqiaxY9X8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED The wisdom of a fool won't set you free --New Order, Bizarre Love Triangle
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? well, actually, it sounds as if that would be your (the utah isp's) responsibility - unless the state of utah starts trying to apply its law(s) to other states (countries)... /joshua -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
joshua sahala wrote: On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Yes. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. ...Right? well, actually, it sounds as if that would be your (the utah isp's) responsibility - unless the state of utah starts trying to apply its law(s) to other states (countries)... NO, see 76-10-1233(1) A content provider that is domiciled in Utah, or generates or hosts content in Utah, ... That's why I mentioned that hosters, and other content generating companies of any kind, will have to move out of the state. The reason that generic hosting facilities have to move is obvious, since nobody screens users -- web pages, blog comments, etc. Why other businesses? For example, no drug companies or pharmacies can have their businesses in Utah; they sell contraceptives, and generate information too sensitive for the tender eyes of minors. Since this law takes effect in January, 2006, the time to begin moving your company is Real Soon Now. Unless you just happen to have FELONY bail bond sitting around cash on hand -- typically $100,000 -- and plenty of funds for lawyers. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
At 08:41 PM 3/22/2005, Steven J. Sobol wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply disconnecting all of my Utah customers. Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview are reachable from Utah either. Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites would, I think, would be a measured response to idiot legislators. It could be give Utah the Finger Day or some such.
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Bill, I'll be happy to contact the IT and/or policy people at any or all of the Tribal Governments who's jurisdictions are surrounded by, or proximal to, those of the state of Utah. (a) They could use the business, just like anyone else, and (b) they are not subject to Utah's state law (and before any smarty pants says PL 280 Utah Code Annotated sections 63-36-9 to 63-36-21, 1991, let me point out that Utah has not amended its state constitutions and, consequently, their claims of jurisdiction are subject to legal challenge, and (deep breath), PL 280 wasn't intended to help missionaries chase foul mouthed apostates and 1st Amendment exercisers out of Indian Country), and quite attached to keeping that difference and keeping it visibly. NO, see 76-10-1233(1) A content provider that is domiciled in Utah, or generates or hosts content in Utah, ... Eric
