Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites
"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines." http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-55989... - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-55989...
Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
You missed a very important line in the article: "Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges." In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" to a filter. Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature. Roy Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-55989...
Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" to a filter. Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"? -- TTFN, patrick
--On Friday, March 04, 2005 11:06 AM -0500 Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP' technology? I doubt it. Aside fromt he normal bents of Utah, I bet 'someone' is lobbying the Utah officials. Lots of money to be made, and lost.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yo Michael! On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP' technology?
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip? In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries that pretend to do it. RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCKLhq8KZibdeR3qURAqxAAJ9inxcUpOcvtFBMKWZjVf3mfGTGZACfdZO/ Yg1go8xcSZIfo6qXseuMnXs= =1LHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
Though I've personally never met him, I think Eric Cartman has: http://members.tripod.com/~JB5555/southpark/vchip.wav http://www.moviesounds.com/sp/vchip.mp3 Eric :)
Most proxy caches are jokes nowadays, anyway. In middle school, the local district used a Microsoft Proxy server that blocked all sites except a whitelist. When it took over 45 seconds to check a site against the whitelist (and by that time, all but a few students knew the one and only name and password, anyway). Then by High School, they moved to Bess from N2H2 and realized that giving teachers names and passwords was a mistake (it took 1 week to be as effective as the old proxy, which still worked anyway). Then they revoked all user accounts on the proxy servers and blocked external proxies, just in time for Terminal Services to allow people to remote to their home PC and browse at their leisure (no, port blocking never came to their mind, and no one mentioed it to them). Sincerely, Joe Johnson www.JoeLovesDreamweaver.com joe@sendjoeanemail.com P.S.: Gary, I am sure I want to use Outlook. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Gary E. Miller Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:35 PM To: Michael Loftis Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yo Michael! On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP' technology?
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip? In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries that pretend to do it. RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCKLhq8KZibdeR3qURAqxAAJ9inxcUpOcvtFBMKWZjVf3mfGTGZACfdZO/ Yg1go8xcSZIfo6qXseuMnXs= =1LHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gary E. Miller wrote:
Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
*raising hand* Got children, y'know. :) Anything other than TV-Y, TV-Y7, or TV-PG, along with the movie ratings of approximately the same stripe, require Mom or Dad to enter our four-digit PIN before the cable company will let anyone watch. The key here is that the end-user has the ultimate choice. If Utah's law provides for end-user choice, I would have a lot less problem than if Utah's law is supposed to do only what the C|Net article says. Of course, "A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman..." The key words here are "newly elected" and "Republican"** - and I think that this might be more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Surely, if Huntsman has any clue at all, he will not actually expect this law to stand, even if it is passed.
In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries that pretend to do it.
They're not the only ones, either. Plenty (if not all) school districts do it too, including the one where my wife works. **If you really must flame me for my opinions about the Goofy Old Party, please do so in private email to me, not on the list. -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
On 3/6/2005 11:45 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
"A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman..."
The key words here are "newly elected" and
From the other end of the wire, look at the votes that the bill has enjoyed, "Nobody spoke against the bill during the committee hearing" [3],
Well as long as we are projecting our ghosts and guessing, I would argue the opposite. For one thing, his term started Jan 3 [1], while the law was first read Jan 28 [2], which is an awfully short time for a first-time elected official to bend a unified state congress to his will. The quotes in the CNET article don't seem to indicate any kind of ownership either, and I'd expect that. the general electoral trend in Utah [4], the presence of the Mormon church, the history of Utah wrt pornography law and enforcement (Hatch is principle sponsor for the federal child porno laws that have been struck down, and there are lots of other things going on), and I think it's probably fair to guess that the law was presented by the legislature as part of routine business--they probably really want to be avoid this stuff. I'd suppose, therefore, that "way-of-life" is probably a much more accurate descriptor for the event than suggesting that it was a stunt by a newbie governor. Of course, this is all outside-the-fishbowl stuff, since my limited experience with the state is not being able to buy any booze on one side-trip, and merely enjoying the scenery on another. But guessing at this stuff is certainly entertaining. For folks still reading, here's what the Deseret Morning News says [5]: | If HB260 is approved, it would require that Utah-based companies | begin rating their sites for potentially harmful materials, which | is primarily nudity or sexual activities, according to guidelines | established by the Utah Consumer Protection Services Division. | | At the same time, the Utah Attorney General's Office would start | developing a registry of those companies that do not rate their | sites as potentially harmful to minors, and by 2007 would allow | Internet service providers to offer that list to their customers | for filtering. | | The bill also appropriates $100,000 for marketing and advertising | campaigns to educate parents about the dangers of the Internet | and $50,000 to research the effectiveness of various filtering | technologies. | | Because the law would only apply to Utah-based companies, it | would not violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. | Constitution, which has hampered most other Internet control | legislation, he said. Also, consumers choosing to use the | registry to block sites would be made aware of the fact that | because the registry would only contain domain names, some | innocous material may not be accessible. | | "Consumers will be informed that they are making the choice to | block this material," he said. "They will also be told that | some information which is not harmful could be blocked." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_M._Huntsman,_Jr. [2] http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/status/hbillsta/hb0260s03.htm [3] http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600113991,00.html [4] http://historytogo.utah.gov/governors.htm [5] http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600113991,00.html -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" to a filter. Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.
I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked, -here-, your account is now _disabled_. You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like. :P This is another attempt to legislate something that can be solved, or should be solved, with technology. After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws have worked. * cough * The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low, in my book. This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State) that declared same sex couples living together, instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine, and incarceration. Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Roy
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-55989...
Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
Richard Irving wrote:
I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked, -here-, your account is now _disabled_.
You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
:P
This is another attempt to legislate something that can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws have worked.
* cough *
The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low, in my book.
This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State) that declared same sex couples living together, instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine, and incarceration.
Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay marriage. Joine efnet and #politics if you want to talk about gay people, but please spare us of the drama. I would have just ignored this thread if it wasn't disguised as possibly useful. This is the problem with nanog, its no longer useful or operational. Most of the contributors to nanog have been wasting their time the last xxx weeks being girly men arguing about laptops for presentations. I bet the blackhats are having a good time watching you bicker and fight and not pay attention to the real issues of network operations. Nanog Deformer (self appointed moderator) On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:01:38 -0500, William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
Richard Irving wrote:
I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked, -here-, your account is now _disabled_.
You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
:P
This is another attempt to legislate something that can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws have worked.
* cough *
The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low, in my book.
This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State) that declared same sex couples living together, instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine, and incarceration.
Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers.
-- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Nanog Deform wrote:
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay marriage.
Actually, gay marriage wasn't mentioned.... Living together isn't marriage, and most common law marriage statutes have long ago gone by the boards. The topic is ISP enforcement of local/regional/state/national "morality". And I thought it a nice heads-up on the difficulty of technical enforcement measures, with an example of a "blue" state where 40% of the citizens ignore the law.... Despite some self-appointed moral arbiters trying to send them to jail. The Lynn Rivers Show (WEMU locally) had a nice segment today on victimless crimes, with the heads of the Libertarian Party and NORML. Under the Utah law, we'd have to block access to lp.org and norml.org.
Nanog Deformer (self appointed moderator)
Somebody not observing the NANOG rules on pseudonymous posting. Could a real moderator block this nitwit, please? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
participants (14)
-
Christopher L. Morrow -
Eric A. Hall -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Eric Gauthier -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
Gary E. Miller -
Joe Johnson -
Michael Loftis -
Nanog Deform -
Patrick W Gilmore -
Richard Irving -
Roy Engehausen -
Steve Sobol -
William Allen Simpson