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.ht...
- ferg
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
-- k. rachael treu, CISSP rara@navigo.com ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)