Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

[William Allen Simpson]

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
doom&gloom 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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

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

[David Barak]

--- 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
doom&gloom 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

[Richard Irving]

David Barak wrote:

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]

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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

> 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

[Michael . Dillon]

> 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

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

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=story&ncid=1212&e=3&u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_hi_te/internet_porn&sid=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

[David Barak]

--- 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

[Barry Shein]

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

[William Allen Simpson]

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.

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

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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

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

[Christopher Woodfield]

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: 
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

[Scott Call]

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

[Steven J. Sobol]

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

[Steven J. Sobol]

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

[Petri Helenius]

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

[Rich Kulawiec]

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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

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 , 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

[David Barak]

--- 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

[David Barak]

--- 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

[Petri Helenius]

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

[Geo.]

> 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]

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

[Michael . Dillon]

> 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

[Simon Waters]

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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

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

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

[Daniel Senie]

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

[William Allen Simpson]

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

[joshua sahala]

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

[Steven J. Sobol]

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

[Owen DeLong]

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

[Barry Shein]

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

[Randy Bush]

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
  
and these things seem to play out in the courts, not the mailing
lists.  

randy

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

[Richard Irving]

pashdown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: 

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

[pashdown]

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

[William Allen Simpson]

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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

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

[David Barak]

--- Rachael Treu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 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

[Rachael Treu]

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?  :?


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.


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

[Richard Parker]

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

[Paul G]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Gibbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
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

[Steve Gibbard]

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

[Dan Hollis]

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

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

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

[Will Yardley]

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

[Florian Weimer]

> 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

[Rachael Treu]

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: 
> 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

[Robert Bonomi]

> 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

[Chris Kuethe]

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

[Paul G]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kathryn Kessey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
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

[Kathryn Kessey]

...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?  

--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

[Rachael Treu]

(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

[Florian Weimer]

* 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

[Steven M. Bellovin]

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

[Scott Weeks]

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

[Steven J. Sobol]

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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

thanks steve. i'm distracted. just got bit by red lake.

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

[Steven M. Bellovin]

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

[Rachael Treu]

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?  

--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

[Kevin Oberman]

> 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

[Bill Woodcock]

> > 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

[Baker Fred]

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

[Richard Irving]

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

[Rachael Treu]

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  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

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

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

[Jared Mauch]

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

[Bill Woodcock]

> 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

[Paul G]

- Original Message - 
From: "Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
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? 
"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

[Roy]

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

[Rachael Treu]

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

[John Kinsella]

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

[Rachael Treu]

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

[Richard Irving]

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

[Paul G]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
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

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

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

[Scott Weeks]

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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

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.

Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

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]