Nice write-up Connor. I’m also glad to learn of the additional screening tomorrow night. I know a few people that couldn’t make it last night and really wanted to go.

Seems like an interesting enough idea, but there is absolutely no way to enforce such a restriction. Any plan that puts the onus of content flagging on the publishers isn’t going to work.

I think there is a need for someone to come up with some idea that is more clever and practical than this.

The other thing is that I don’t want to have to check in and/or register my content with anyone in order to publish something on the net.

Let sites be flaggable or reportable to some assigned authority

What you’ve just described is an adult content filter, which is a technology that is readily available. Things like this have been around for quite a long time, too, and they work well.

Maybe the model could be improved some (using an accepted standard for flagging, and centralizing the flag database), but isn’t this already working well for people? Why do we need to get the government (which is only one of hundreds on the Internet) involved?

I don’t think this idea is a great start - it makes a move in a direction I’d rather not have, which is some government authority making decisions on what I publish on the Internet. No thanks.

Having people form their own libraries of censored content is great, but government enforced and mandated censorship on a global network is a step in the wrong direction.

I guess two thoughts to start with–

1. That they want it to be someone else’s daughter/wife is so revealing of how selfish and damaging it is, and what kind of character-damage porn does to people. How distorted do your thinking patterns need to be in order to know that something is wrong, and clearly indicate that you would never want your own family involved, and yet because of the addictive nature/etc., be ok with it harming others.

2. If the cost of stopping porn is government censorship, or censorship of any kind, so be it. I’m not an advocate of censorship, and you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who cares as much about personal liberty as I do, but I feel that there are limits, and the unguarded opportunity to access any content isn’t worth the personal/familial/societal effects of unsolicited porn reaching those who don’t want it or are too young/vulnerable to make a choice about it.

@John David Anderson
You make good points about government control and the difficulty of enforcing this. There is also the concern that there’d be no enforcement outside the U.S. How do you flag content coming from off-shore servers? I think Ralph has made the point that we still need to make a step in the right direction, even if all the answers aren’t clear yet.

The government already sets rules on what can be shown on TV, depending on the time of day and the medium (broadcast, cable, PPV, etc.) We could argue whether it’s too much or not enough, but they already do it. Instead of pre-screening all content, the FCC applies fines for breaking the rules (e.g. Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.) You can still see plenty of smut on TV but at least there’s SOME protections.

If the producers of even the most explicit porn were incented (through fear of a fine) to move their content to another http port, that’d definitely be a step in the right direction.

One fellow in the movie made the point that the government makes quite a bit of money from, and hence has resources to regulate, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. He suggested the same for porn.

@Carolynn
While I think there are appropriate times for censorship, Ralph Yarro makes it clear that he’s not trying to be an extremist. He doesn’t want to consume pornography, but he recognizes that some people do and a politically viable solution will have to provide them that outlet.

Then again, I suppose somebody could simply invent a proxy that would channel content from the chosen port and redirect it on the “community” port. The guys behind this initiative are smart, I’m sure that they’ve accounted for this in their proposal, though I haven’t yet had the chance to look in to the technical aspect too extensively, having just learned about it last night.

Its not hard to tunnel. There’s easy ways around any sort of content channelling or filtering. That’s why these approaches won’t work on their own. I read the tech specs, and the approach was more towards audiences who don’t know how the Intarweb works.

We ideally shouldn’t. I would hope that this would be a grassroots, ground-up initiative where companies, organizations, and individuals would do it themselves.

Isn’t that like expecting the cows to corral themselves at the end of the day? These people want exposure and traffic that runs to their businesses. There’s now way Mr. X is going to voluntarily flag his obscene business venture so it can get compartmentalized.

The other option is to have the community voluntarily flag material as a warning to others. That’s called an adult content filter, and already exists and works.

However, I don’t think censorship or government control factors in at all.

If a government entity has to review my content at any time to tell me what port I am forced to publish on?

It’s just like TV

I don’t see how. The network for distributing content via TV is completely different. Its a US-only network, on a limited public band, which takes millions of dollars of equipment to run from a spot that is easy to detect.

If someone sets up a rogue TV broadcast over the public airwaves, its pretty easy to find that person and take the appropriate action.

If I walk into an internet cafe in Bankok, and log on to a server in New Zealand to post some pictures, how exactly is an American Authority going to be able to monitor or stop what I’m doing?

Government involvement is not the right avenue. I agree with you that the way things work could use improvement, but this isn’t the right way.

@Carolynn

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Who defines “porn?” I’m not sure I want the government to define it for me or my family.

Walk into a 7-11 anywhere in the country and you can walk out with a magazine that I would not want in my home. I can’t really say that the government has successfully restricted that content to my liking. Nor do I really want them to. There are others’ who may seek out that content. And I’m talking here about a certain annual issue of a sports-focused magazine…

Where’s the liberty in being subjected to porn by casually flipping channels?

Please stop comparing the Internet to the TV. I’ve referenced reasons why it doesn’t work, and you continue to use the improper model to counter my claims.

The internet isn’t a set of content channels you pay for. You pay for the infrastructure that comes to your house, and you pay for a chunk of bandwidth you can use.

The internet is an arena where anyone can publish anything anytime. Its a global network for a reason. What liberty would I be surrendering? The ability to publish anything I want to without government intervention and review. You don’t see that as a problem?

Regardless of any legislation that were to ever happen, the global internet community will not change. Such a measure is ridiculously impossible to enforce.

Please address this concern before you support this sort of legislation.

This is a societal issue that must be addressed to stem the tide of filth that is destroying our community. Morality-based legislation was used implemented in Book of Mormon times as well as today. If the majority in our Republic see a need to outlaw the enemy and find ways to restrict his dominion, is that bad?

It can be. Even bad people have rights.

If my neighbors get together and decide that I threaten the moral environment of the community, can they take a vote before burning down my house?

This is a ground-up petition for a solution to a dire problem. When the citizens themselves are actively asking for a fix to the issue, government surely is entitled (and responsible) to act accordingly.

Not the way I read it. From the cp80.com website:

The CP80 Internet Channel Initiative uses a three-pronged approach to solve the Internet pornography problem:

1. A Technical Solution

2. A Legislative Solution

3. Internet Governance Solution

This is a legislative, governing movement. It places the publishing power in the hands of the state.

I’d be all for a grassroots, open source, standards based approach. This isn’t it. Its a misguided attempt (For the Children!!) to empower a single nation on a global network, at the cost of the personal freedom to publish.

This isn’t some deception by leaders seeking to infringe upon our liberties to hoard up more power, this is concerned parents and voters wanting a way that they can choose what they let into their homes.

This is just speculation, and I don’t agree with this particular opinion.

Who defines “porn?” I’m not sure I want the government to define it for me or my family.

I know it when I see it!

Open question: Are we overstating the possibility that porn links are being foisted on kids? I haven’t seen an unsolicited popup window with a porn link for literally years. I never run across the stuff unless I actively hunt it down. Heh.

Small point: I notice Connor’s conundrum — he would like to see government take some action on porn. But because of his anti-government views, he doesn’t want to see government get involved. But really, this effort would really only be done well by governments. Grassroots movements would not be very effective on this kind of thing.

The fact that it’s a world wide web, though, makes it difficult for even the government of a very large country to reform the web’s content. Could such a task be managed by… a one-world government?

The CP80 Internet Channel Solution can work. The Internet is not a force of nature–it is a man-made contraption and it can be controlled.

The technology used to create “Internet Channels” is simple and lets everyone choose what they want to do–and is similar, in effect, to how people choose between packages for cable TV.

That’s the easy part.

Passing appropriate legislation is the hard part. Legislation that protects an individual’s choice to access or block pornography. That kind of legislation is NOT censorship.

Of course there are all kinds of ways to work around technology–but that is why appropriate legislation is necessary. Your example of the 7-11 is a great one. I suppose a kid could walk into a magazine shop and walk out with a porn magazine–but what happens when the store gets caught doing that–fines and jail time.

Same thing would work with the Internet.

So you think, I will move my server outside the US, then I can’t be caught. 1). Part of the solution will leverage the fact that IP addresses are organized by geo-political boundaries. So INDIVIDUALS could choose to not only block the Open ports (where adult content would reside) but block the IP Adress blocks for any country that is non compliant.

Furthermore, the solution suggests using Internet governing bodies, such as ICANN and the five RIRs to further enforce compliance.

As far as drawing the line on what is pornographic and what isn’t , there are already plenty of lines draw for us–”R”, “NC-17″, “Ma”, “Parental Advisory”, etc.

But what is really distrurbing that many people do not realize is that while obscenity and harmful-to-minors keep the really dark, violent and disturbing pornography well out of the way of mainstreet America, no such laws are currently applicable to the Internet.

That means that your 12-year old son or daughter can access some of the hardest–and I mean HARDEST–pornography imaginable. AND IT DOES AFFECT THEM.

Allow children to have access to the Internet in its current state is not different then allowing every TV in the US to have porn channels on all the time and to allow children to purchase/rent any pornographic DVDs, videos or magazines that want to.

It’s absurd. We don’t allow it in our communites. We shouldn’t allow it on the Internet.

So lets fix it.

I went to see Traffic Control last night– it was excellent.

They’ll have another screening this coming Tuesday, same time (7 p.m., go at 6:30 for seats) at the Wynnsong.

The Internet is not a force of nature–it is a man-made contraption and it can be controlled.

I’m going to laugh at any legislation, especially US legislation, that tries to control a global network where everyone can create new content at any given moment.

Legislation that protects an individual’s choice to access or block pornography. That kind of legislation is NOT censorship.

It also blocks my right to publish whatever I want on my own blog. Posting naughty pictures is out, right? What about discussions about gay marriage? Is that too racy for some ears? Who draws the line? What about people wanting to share relationship advice?

Having an outside authority regulate and remove my content is censorship.

So you think, I will move my server outside the US, then I can’t be caught.

No, I think I walk into a public library, plug in my laptop, and I have a world visible web server. I think I’m at school and start a script that serves web content on my workstation. I think I write a virus that activates this functionality on any machine it touches.

There’s no way to regulate this.

Allow children to have access to the Internet in its current state is not different then allowing every TV in the US to have porn channels on all the time and to allow children to purchase/rent any pornographic DVDs, videos or magazines that want to.

Please read above for the four or five times I’ve shown how TV is nothing like the Internet. With TV, you are broadcasting on a limited set of bands. With TV, it wafts through the very air. With TV, it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to broadcast.

With the Internet, you can always add more content. Always. With the Internet, you have to pay to access the infrastructure. With the Internet you can use a computer that is 10 years old and put free software on it to publish content.

Completely different.

Let’s fix it with a solution that is going to work. Let’s fix it with a solution that has a chance of making a difference.

I’m going to laugh at any legislation, especially US legislation, that tries to control a global network where everyone can create new content at any given moment.

The US and international community has done a pretty good job of regulating the Internet for monetary exchanges, identity theft, domain-name disputes–but you think its impossible to do the same for pornography.

Of course we can. US tax dollars paid for the Internet, it is still under contract with the NTIA through the Department of Commerce. We still control it, and can do some good with that control.

It also blocks my right to publish whatever I want on my own blog. Posting naughty pictures is out, right?

Nope. You can publish all the “legal” porn you want. You would just have to make that porn available over the designated Open ports.

For example, when you purchase a book on amazon.com, you go from port 80 to port 443 to make the financial transaction and then back to port 80.

This would work the same way. When someone accessed adult content they would transparently move to an Open port to access the content. But if a parent blocked that port, then an individual attempting to access it would not be able to.

What about discussions about gay marriage? Is that too racy for some ears? Who draws the line? What about people wanting to share relationship advice?

It all depends. You have to look at specific instances and the content of specific discussions to determine if it belonged on the Community ports or Open ports.

Having an outside authority regulate and remove my content is censorship.

I know. That is what makes me so angry about the Internet. Right now ICANN is determining for me that I have to have an Internet ripe with porn and no real tools to allow me to block it. I have no choice. They are making the choice fore me. It a shame.

Good point though.

At least the CP80 solution would allow people to choose. You could even choose to publish porn over the community ports if you wanted–just like you can choose to rob a bank.

But with CP80, there will be consequences.

So you think, I will move my server outside the US, then I can’t be caught.

It was an example. If you moved it into a country that also passed a CP80 law, you would be caught. If you were in a non-compliant country, you could be blocked entirely.

But blocking would be an individual decision.

No, I think I walk into a public library, plug in my laptop, and I have a world visible web server. I think I’m at school and start a script that serves web content on my workstation. I think I write a virus that activates this functionality on any machine it touches.

Sure. But when you get caught. Are you prepared to pay the penalities that could amount to millions of dollars of civil and criminal offenses.

There’s no way to regulate this.

I think you would be surprised at just how easy it would be to regulate it once the laws are passed. Once people are held accountable for access, you won’t be able to just plug in anywhere. ISPs will have to know who is publishing on their network or be held responsible themselves.

Please read above for the four or five times I’ve shown how TV is nothing like the Internet. With TV, you are broadcasting on a limited set of bands. With TV, it wafts through the very air. With TV, it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to broadcast.

The point is that as a consumer I can pick and choose what programming I want in my home. The point is that in the brick-and-motar world it is against the law to sell pornography in any shape or form to a minor.

That is simply not the case on the Internet. There is no accountablility so there is no responsibility.

That needs to change.

With the Internet, you can always add more content. Always. With the Internet, you have to pay to access the infrastructure. With the Internet you can use a computer that is 10 years old and put free software on it to publish content.

Completely different.

The Internet to TV metaphor was being used differently–besides, with telecommunication convergance, that is all going to change. Then the TV will be the Internet. So I will have to disagree with you.

Let’s fix it with a solution that is going to work. Let’s fix it with a solution that has a chance of making a difference.

I am all ears. These guys have been working on it for almost 2 years. They have spoke to some of the brightest minds at Cisco and Foundry and at ISPs all around the nation and world. And all of them say it works.

If you have a better idea, speak up. But I think if you do your homework you will find that it is actually an excellent solution.

Legal control and the technical details of port switching have nothing to do with the problem you’re going to be faced with. The biggest problem this approach has is the practical nature of the task.

How many sites are on the internet? Depending where you look its 100-400 million sites. How do you plan to catalog and flag that content, especially when is an exponentially growing and moving target?

It all depends. You have to look at specific instances and the content of specific discussions to determine if it belonged on the Community ports or Open ports.

No, not me, some government entity. It would be content regulated by the State. This is where it makes me nervous, and it was the point of my original argument. Empowering the government to decide what I can and can’t post and where I can post is a step in the wrong direction.

I know. That is what makes me so angry about the Internet. Right now ICANN is determining for me that I have to have an Internet ripe with porn and no real tools to allow me to block it. I have no choice. They are making the choice fore me. It a shame.

Interestingly enough, I’ve somehow avoided being forced to access content on the Internet with no tools. My own ISP offers content filtering, my email client comes with a free filter, and there are a plethora of tools you can research online. Many of them are free.

Choice and freedom exists on the Internet right now. I don’t need Uncle Sam to force me into his own way of doing things.

Asking the government to step in and do your filtering for you should probably an approach you consider after you’ve taken other measures. I can make perfectly tailored content decisions right now. Seems you’d lose an amount of flexibility once you’ve place those powers in the hands of the state.

At least the CP80 solution would allow people to choose. You could even choose to publish porn over the community ports if you wanted–just like you can choose to rob a bank.

How exactly does legislating and forcing content decisions to be made at the state level increase freedom?

I think you would be surprised at just how easy it would be to regulate it once the laws are passed.

I doubt it. My original guess was that today’s Internet has 100-400 million hosts. The growth pattern is nearly exponential on a host basis, and many of those hosts are actively changing content on an hourly basis. Some of the data is being published live.

If you’re expecting a central office to catalog the globe’s content in any sort of effective way, I think you’d be surprised at just how ineffective any such effort would be.

The point is that as a consumer I can pick and choose what programming I want in my home. The point is that in the brick-and-motar world it is against the law to sell pornography in any shape or form to a minor.

That is simply not the case on the Internet. There is no accountablility so there is no responsibility.

There isn’t?

Oh, so you think its the State’s responsibility to keep my children from viewing pornography online? Maybe that’s where we differ. I assumed it was mine.

I am all ears. These guys have been working on it for almost 2 years. They have spoke to some of the brightest minds at Cisco and Foundry and at ISPs all around the nation and world. And all of them say it works.

Regardless of the authorities you appeal to in order to ratify your position, my argument still stands.

If you have a better idea, speak up. But I think if you do your homework you will find that it is actually an excellent solution.

I don’t have to have a better idea to know that this is a bad one.

Having reviewed this idea, I still can’t see it working, nor would I want it to work like its been outlined. I am unable to see how this solution is practical, and I also disagree with allowing the government to do something like this.

Those two issues are fatal flaws, and I haven’t yet seen them addressed.

Private operations and community based approaches are the only answer to this problem. Putting this in the hands of the government is not the answer.

Legal control and the technical details of port switching have nothing to do with the problem you’re going to be faced with. The biggest problem this approach has is the practical nature of the task.

Hey, if we can put a man on the moon, this is a small thing.

How many sites are on the internet? Depending where you look its 100-400 million sites. How do you plan to catalog and flag that content, especially when is an exponentially growing and moving target?

No one is cataloging anything. The person responsible for publishing the content is responsible for it and needs to make sure that it is publish on the right ports.

No, not me, some government entity. It would be content regulated by the State. This is where it makes me nervous, and it was the point of my original argument. Empowering the government to decide what I can and can’t post and where I can post is a step in the wrong direction.

So when the FDA does not allow a company to make outrageous claims–such as a glass of water can cure cancer–you’re against that? Besides, you can post whatever you want.

It’s just that if you post the wrong content on the community port, the government will enforce the same type of laws that are enforced everywhere else in the US and in many parts of the world.

Interestingly enough, I’ve somehow avoided being forced to access content on the Internet with no tools. My own ISP offers content filtering, my email client comes with a free filter, and there are a plethora of tools you can research online. Many of them are free.

The problem isn’t with people who can control themselves, it is with people and in particular children that will seek it out. A FILTER WILL NOT STOP A KID WHO IS LOOKING FOR IT. It amounts to a speed bump.

Choice and freedom exists on the Internet right now. I don’t need Uncle Sam to force me into his own way of doing things.

Not for me and millions of other people around the world. I don’t have a choice of experience a porn-free internet.

Asking the government to step in and do your filtering for you should probably an approach you consider after you’ve taken other measures. I can make perfectly tailored content decisions right now. Seems you’d lose an amount of flexibility once you’ve place those powers in the hands of the state.

I don’t want them to make decisions for me. That is not what CP80 does. I want them to enforce categorization and organization of content so that I can make choices for myself.

How exactly does legislating and forcing content decisions to be made at the state level increase freedom?

How do any laws increase freedom? Why not do away with all of them and live in a complete state of anarchy–is that freedom.

It is easy to say we don’t need laws when we live in a country full of laws and law-abiding citizens.

But in this particular case. Today, I can’t choose to block porn. With categorization and organization tools, I can choose to block porn–but you wouldn’t have to if you didn’t want to. That is more choice/freedom than exists today.

I doubt it. My original guess was that today’s Internet has 100-400 million hosts. The growth pattern is nearly exponential on a host basis, and many of those hosts are actively changing content on an hourly basis. Some of the data is being published live.

That’s fine. It doesn’t matter how many sites there are. Once the laws are in place, people can be held accountable and it will get cleaned up.

If you’re expecting a central office to catalog the globe’s content in any sort of effective way, I think you’d be surprised at just how ineffective any such effort would be.

No one is cataloging the Internet. If I found porn on the Community port, I would have the right to start a civil action against the publisher.

The point is that as a consumer I can pick and choose what programming I want in my home. The point is that in the brick-and-motar world it is against the law to sell pornography in any shape or form to a minor.

the point is a consumer can pick the programming because it is organized and categorized. Why can’t the Internet work the same way?

Pornography is a fairly nebulous word. The fact is there are forms of pornography that can be sold in some places–and then there are other forms of pornography that are illegal and will land you in jail.

Unfortunately, all forms of pornography–legal and illegal–exist on the internet without any regulation or ability to prevent children from accessing it.

That is simply not the case on the Internet. There is no accountablility so there is no responsibility.

There isn’t?

Not when it comes to pornography.

Oh, so you think its the State’s responsibility to keep my children from viewing pornography online? Maybe that’s where we differ. I assumed it was mine.

Oh, I see. So your opposed to allows that prevent children from purchasing guns, alcohol and illicit drugs. Because being a parent is enough.

The fact is that parents need a little help. They need tools to help them enforce there decisions. CP80 would give them those tools.

Regardless of the authorities you appeal to in order to ratify your position, my argument still stands.

You don’t have an argument. You only have an opinion.

I don’t have to have a better idea to know that this is a bad one.

That’s not the point. You either appreciate the fact that something needs to be done or you think everything is just fine.

And it sounds like you are one of the later.

Having reviewed this idea, I still can’t see it working, nor would I want it to work like its been outlined. I am unable to see how this solution is practical, and I also disagree with allowing the government to do something like this.

The CP80 solution simply applies the same level of law to pornography on the Internet that exists in the real world. It enables individuals to choose. It doesn’t prevent anyone from posting or viewing legal pornography.

So where’s the problem.

Private operations and community based approaches are the only answer to this problem. Putting this in the hands of the government is not the answer.

Exactly, the porn Industry and ICANN have utterly failed to step up. So now they need to be told to behave.

No one is cataloging anything. The person responsible for publishing the content is responsible for it and needs to make sure that it is publish on the right ports.

That has to be enforced somehow, and you’re going to have to know the contents of the Internet to fine people for breaking the rules.

The problem isn’t with people who can control themselves, it is with people and in particular children that will seek it out. A FILTER WILL NOT STOP A KID WHO IS LOOKING FOR IT. It amounts to a speed bump.

Neither will moving the content to another port. I’ve circumvented firewalls in order to get my email. Its a horribly simplistic operation to get around port-based filtering. The measures proposed in CP80 aren’t any more bulletproof than existing systems.

The main responsibility rests on parents. You won’t be able to stop a determined viewer with technical measures. The only way to stop that sort of person is by education. Safety-net type measures to prevent accidental exposure are already available. If you want to improve something, you might consider spending your efforts there.

Not for me and millions of other people around the world. I don’t have a choice of experience a porn-free internet…

I do. Right now. I’m not spending any vast amounts of money or time ensuring that, either.

I don’t want them to make decisions for me. That is not what CP80 does. I want them to enforce categorization and organization of content so that I can make choices for myself.

How do you enforce categorization without making choices for people? Who gets to decide how things are categorized? The government. That choice is made for you.

But in this particular case. Today, I can’t choose to block porn. With categorization and organization tools, I can choose to block porn–but you wouldn’t have to if you didn’t want to. That is more choice/freedom than exists today.

You can choose to block it right now. I’m already utilizing filtering tools freely available without government involvement. I can make completely tailored decisions that apply directly to my family. The decisions I make are perfect for me, and are effective. No government solution can do that.

That’s fine. It doesn’t matter how many sites there are. Once the laws are in place, people can be held accountable and it will get cleaned up.

Just for fun, let’s say the Internet never changed. Ever. Let’s also say there’s only 200 million sites you need to make sure are “clean.”

If you checked 20,000 every hour of everyday (between 5 and 6 every second), you wouldn’t be able to finish in a year’s time.

And that’s if nothing changed or grew since you first looked at it. It does matter how many sites there are if you actually plan to make an effort like this. I’m convinced it’s impossible.

No one is cataloging the Internet. If I found porn on the Community port, I would have the right to start a civil action against the publisher.

Good luck finding them, especially if the site was the result of a virus, or if the site is up and down and migrates. Tracking down spammers using the current judicial system isn’t very effective, and similar measures trying to track down CP80 violators would be similarly ineffective.

The fact is that parents need a little help. They need tools to help them enforce there decisions. CP80 would give them those tools.

I’ll say it one more time. These tools are already available. If they aren’t working for you, move to change them.

You don’t have an argument. You only have an opinion.

My argument is based on fact. Please explain how CP80 could be enforced, given the exponentially growing and migratory wealth of content on the Internet. My concerns are based on facts, and I’ve even gone to providing a numerical example this time.

Besides, when you’re all done implementing CP80, you’ve got something that’s just as easy to get around as the current solutions.

You could say my concerns about giving the government power to censor the Internet are opinion based, but my premises for that discussion have been well documented here, and I think that relying on the government to enforce social policies in the homes of America has been met with limited success in the past.

I don’t feel my thoughts have been pure opinion, and frankly, its belittling to say so.

That’s not the point. You either appreciate the fact that something needs to be done or you think everything is just fine.

I realize the depth of the situation, but I feel tools are already available to deal with the problem. If this needs to be improved, then improve it there, rather than suggesting an impossible government measure.

I don’t feel I’m really getting anywhere with this discussion. My base concerns have not been answered, and replies to my thoughts are getting met with increasingly sarcastic retorts.

I’m signing off at this point.

That has to be enforced somehow, and you’re going to have to know the contents of the Internet to fine people for breaking the rules.

People would report a suspected violation to the authorities who would follow-up and see.

Ultimately, 12 men /women of a jury would decide whether a certain depiction should have been placed in the adult area or not.

Neither will moving the content to another port. I’ve circumvented firewalls in order to get my email. Its a horribly simplistic operation to get around port-based filtering. The measures proposed in CP80 aren’t any more bulletproof than existing systems.

Sure. But with CP80, when you circumvent/publish over the wrong ports, you would be looking at stiff fines, jail time and losing your domain names and IP addresses–OUCH!

The main responsibility rests on parents. You won’t be able to stop a determined viewer with technical measures. The only way to stop that sort of person is by education. Safety-net type measures to prevent accidental exposure are already available. If you want to improve something, you might consider spending your efforts there.

So we should do away with all the laws and hope that education is enough to maintain a organized and descent society?

Ya, that will work.

I do. Right now. I’m not spending any vast amounts of money or time ensuring that, either.

Ya, but what about the estimated millions of teens that are actively seeking out this stuff. What are you going to tell your daughter who was just molested by a kid who was looking at porn and decided to imitate what he saw?

The kid should have been better educated? Pornography is a harmful substance that deserves the same type of restrictions as other controlled substances.

How do you enforce categorization without making choices for people? Who gets to decide how things are categorized? The government. That choice is made for you.

Are you just as opposed to movie ratings, telephone books, phone numbers, streets signs, nutritional information on foods. The government DOES have a responsibility to organize and categorize as best they can.

But as long as you have access to all the information, there is nothing wrong with that. It promotes commerce, growth, education and communication.

You can choose to block it right now. I’m already utilizing filtering tools freely available without government involvement. I can make completely tailored decisions that apply directly to my family. The decisions I make are perfect for me, and are effective. No government solution can do that.

Ya but when a kid defeats your filter–which they can easiy do–you have no recourse. Filters, white lists, firewalls, etc. all of it is so easily bypassed it essentially makes them worthless.

And then what.

CP80 enforces basic community standards.

Just for fun, let’s say the Internet never changed. Ever. Let’s also say there’s only 200 million sites you need to make sure are “clean.”
If you checked 20,000 every hour of everyday (between 5 and 6 every second), you wouldn’t be able to finish in a year’s time.

Ya, but there would be 5 billion people policing the sites. With potentially tens of thousands of lawsuits filed. Eventually the pornographers would get the message–publish on the Open Ports or be fined, jailed and have your domain names and IP addresses taken away.

Good luck finding them, especially if the site was the result of a virus, or if the site is up and down and migrates. Tracking down spammers using the current judicial system isn’t very effective, and similar measures trying to track down CP80 violators would be similarly ineffective.

Sure, there are freaks. Like I said, you could broadcast your own pirate TV station. Crank call people from a public phone, etc., etc. But what happens when you get caught. That’s the difference.

How many trouble makers are willing to do it a second or third time when they have been fined tens of thousands or even millions of dollars. Or spent time in jail. Or have been black listed from owning a domain name or being hosted anywhere.

I’ll say it one more time. These tools are already available. If they aren’t working for you, move to change them.

I will say it one more time. The tools that are currently available DON’T WORK! IF THEY DID, WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THE PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW.

My argument is based on fact.

I’m sorry. I must have missed the post where you presented one fact, one statistic or one quote from a qualified source.

Please explain how CP80 could be enforced, given the exponentially growing and migratory wealth of content on the Internet. My concerns are based on facts, and I’ve even gone to providing a numerical example this time.

See the posts above. It is not that hard.

Besides, when you’re all done implementing CP80, you’ve got something that’s just as easy to get around as the current solutions.

Sure, but that is why the laws, treaties and Internet governance elements are important. Get caught, get in trouble.

You could say my concerns about giving the government power to censor the Internet are opinion based, but my premises for that discussion have been well documented here, and I think that relying on the government to enforce social policies in the homes of America has been met with limited success in the past.

If that is true, why not repeal all laws.

I don’t feel my thoughts have been pure opinion, and frankly, its belittling to say so.

Hey, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

I realize the depth of the situation, but I feel tools are already available to deal with the problem. If this needs to be improved, then improve it there, rather than suggesting an impossible government measure.

The Internet and porn industry have had years to solve the problem and have shown that they simply have no interest or ability to do so.

So we need a CP80 solution.

I don’t feel I’m really getting anywhere with this discussion. My base concerns have not been answered, and replies to my thoughts are getting met with increasingly sarcastic retorts.

That’s because you refuse to open you mind and see the situation for what it really is. The Internet is more than just yours or mines, it is every ones. The Internet needs to serve everyone’s needs, and it simply doesn’t today.

Greetings.

I saw a preview for that movie on youtube, and I have to say, that is by far, the dumbest idea I have ever heard.
I thought it must have been a joke at first.

Putting asside the moral issues of pornography for a moment, I was offended by your idea on a purely technical level.

A port is nothing like a telivision channel, that is an innacurate analogy.
A better analogy would be to compare it to a radio frequency.

Besides, not all HTTP traffic travels over port 80, port 80 is just a recomendation, and, most importantly, most porn DOES NOT USE HTTP.

Believe me, I know from experience.

Streaming video, unless it is flash based, does not use port 80, and most pay per view porn is only avalable over an encrypted http connection; port 443.

AND THIS ISN’T EVEN SCRATCHING THE SURFACE since the majority of pornographic video is distributed via BITTORRENT, which is VERY hard to stamp out or block since it uses a random port and is usually encrypted.

Your idea for a mandatory “porn protocol” would be innefective, unenforcable, and is both laughable -and- offensive.

Your ignorance of technology is palpable to people like me, and you sound more pathetic than Sen. Ted Steven’s ranting about the internet being a series of tubes.

You’re not good at this.
Find something else to be outraged at — I think there are some teenagers on your lawn.

- Dequeued

Putting asside the moral issues of pornography for a moment…

No, absolutely not. You don’t have to discuss pornography as a moral issue, because it is also a child abuse and mental health issue–but don’t just dismiss the morality of it.

It is immoral. It is harmful, to the individuals that participate in it, to the individuals that use it and to the communities that tolerate it.

, I was offended by your idea on a purely technical level.

A port is nothing like a telivision channel, that is an innacurate analogy.
A better analogy would be to compare it to a radio frequency.

We will stick to television channels. Because with regard to content management, there are plenty of similarities.

Besides, not all HTTP traffic travels over port 80, port 80 is just a recomendation, and, most importantly, most porn DOES NOT USE HTTP.

If you took the time to actually read the solution you would find that it takes into account all of the above and much more than you have considered.

The solution would designate a range of ports for the transmission of pornographic content. The range could include thousands of ports which a content provider could choose from.

Use of the designated ports would be enforced with laws and Internet governance bodies.

Believe me, I know from experience.

Streaming video, unless it is flash based, does not use port 80, and most pay per view porn is only avalable over an encrypted http connection; port 443.

Technology changes. It evolves. That’s what it does. Let me ask, do you use a 286 computer with DOS? Is your cell phone larger than you hand?

Technology will adapt.

AND THIS ISN’T EVEN SCRATCHING THE SURFACE since the majority of pornographic video is distributed via BITTORRENT, which is VERY hard to stamp out or block since it uses a random port and is usually encrypted.

The enforcement element would make it illegal. If you get caught breaking the law, you are looking at fines, jail time, loss of domain names or IP Addresses.

People rob banks and commit murder all the time. But when they get caught, they pay the price.

Your idea for a mandatory “porn protocol” would be innefective, unenforcable, and is both laughable -and- offensive.

You are thinking too small. You need to broaden your perspective and have a better understanding of the underlying technologies.

It is very doable.

Your ignorance of technology is palpable to people like me, and you sound more pathetic than Sen. Ted Steven’s ranting about the internet being a series of tubes.

I understand that the people like you, the technocratic dinosaurs are afraid of an evolutionary path that will take control of the Internet away from you. But it is coming and inevitable.

You do not decide what is right or wrong for the Internet. It belongs to the people of the world, and I think you will quickly find that they want an Internet that they can control.

That Internet doesn’t exist. But it is coming. And the CP80 Intiative, at http://www.cp80.org, is a step in that direction.

You’re not good at this.
Find something else to be outraged at — I think there are some teenagers on your lawn.

Of course the irony of such knee-jerk reactions is that you live and enjoy the opportunities and freedoms afforded you by a civil society, one built on a foundation of decency.

You should go spend a week in Darfur and see what anarchy is all about. Or go spend a week as a sex slave, kidnapped from your home to quench the thirst sexual predators who are energized by the hyper sexuality portrayed by Internet porn.

Go do that and then come back and talk to us.

Jr. you have a lot to learn.

…don’t just dismiss the morality of it

I think his point is that its a stupid idea even if you only looked at it from a technical standpoint. To that, I say: well said.

We will stick to television channels. Because with regard to content management, there are plenty of similarities.

Please explain them then. Publishing content on the Internet is nothing like publishing content on the airwaves.

The enforcement element would make it illegal. If you get caught breaking the law, you are looking at fines, jail time, loss of domain names or IP Addresses.

People rob banks and commit murder all the time. But when they get caught, they pay the price.

Yes, but you can’t rob a bank in Beijing sitting in your pajamas in an Internet Cafe in Rio. Illegal != Enforceable.

I suppose the US is already into global policing anyway, so maybe that’s why this measure is getting some press.

I’d like to see how a single government plans to enforce this measure globally.

Jr. you have a lot to learn.

It occurs to me that your response is more knee-jerk and emotive in contrast to dequeued’s, but that’s just my opinion.

There’s no way CP80 will work.

I think his point is that its a stupid idea even if you only looked at it from a technical standpoint. To that, I say: well said.

1). Read the solution before commenting.

2). Tell us exactly why it won’t work.

If I had a dime for every techie that thought they new what they were talking about, I wold be a rich man.

CP80 always welcomes anyone that can either improve the solution or suggest a better solution.

So, please. Let us know.

Please explain them then. Publishing content on the Internet is nothing like publishing content on the airwaves.

No withstanding the fact that many cities already are already converting to delivering television programming via broadband, at the end of the day, you have a content provider who makes his content available via some medium to an end user.

You are so indoctrinated in bites and bytes, you are incapable of thinking beyond them.

The Internet is broken. Plain and simple. It could do a much better job of letting people control the content that enters their home–CP80 is a step in that direction.

Yes, but you can’t rob a bank in Beijing sitting in your pajamas in an Internet Cafe in Rio. Illegal != Enforceable.

That is what the legislative / Internet governance elements of CP80 are for. They will make sure that when someone violates the standard, they are punished.

I suppose the US is already into global policing anyway, so maybe that’s why this measure is getting some press.

Leaders lead.

I’d like to see how a single government plans to enforce this measure globally.

It’s not difficult. I know you would like to think it is, but its not. The international community works together for lots of reasons, banking, trade, theft, child pornography, etc.

They could work together with this as well.

All your well wishing that the Internet isn’t going to evolve isn’t going to stop it from doing so.

It occurs to me that your response is more knee-jerk and emotive in contrast to dequeued’s, but that’s just my opinion.

There’s no way CP80 will work.

If you are so smart, please come up with a working solution. We welcome it.

Of course, you don’t have one. And don’t want one because you like the Internet just the way it is–big surprise.

Grow up. Act responsibly. And help find a solution.

Stop all your belly aching.

1). Read the solution before commenting.

2). Tell us exactly why it won’t work.

See my comments “John David Anderson” above. I’ve addressed both your points above.

If I had a dime for every techie that thought they new what they were talking about, I wold be a rich man.

I’ve worked with the Internet for over 10 years. I currently work as a developer and consultant for a web development agency. I’ve contributed to open source projects, maybe some you’ve heard of. I’m not completely unqualified to address this subject.

Rather than make broad generalizations about your audience, maybe you could just address the concerns I’ve leveled at CP80.

CP80 always welcomes anyone that can either improve the solution or suggest a better solution.

That’s wonderful, I don’t have to have a better idea to know that this is a bad one.

Please read my comments above. I think a government-forced effort here is inappropriate, not to mention the impossibility of enforcing something like this.

No withstanding the fact that many cities already are already converting to delivering television programming via broadband, at the end of the day, you have a content provider who makes his content available via some medium to an end user.

You might as well compare in the Internet to the medieval town crier then. Best of luck with that approach. I don’t think the two mediums are similar enough to draw parallels.

You are so indoctrinated in bites and bytes, you are incapable of thinking beyond them.

I must have somehow offended you in order for you to accuse me of being short-minded and brainwashed. I apologize if that is so, and would politely ask that you remain respectful of my point of view.

The Internet is broken. Plain and simple. It could do a much better job of letting people control the content that enters their home–CP80 is a step in that direction.

If it was plain and simple, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Besides, there are already many privately offered software packages that already do what CP80 is trying to enforce.

That is what the legislative / Internet governance elements of CP80 are for. They will make sure that when someone violates the standard, they are punished.

How? I can write a script that publishes content, on 65000 ports, on any number of servers worldwide, in a manner of hours. Anyone can hire someone who could do the same. Please see my arguments above about enforcability. Its quite literally impossible.

Leaders lead.

Hitler was a leader. So is satan. He actually tried to force everyone to do the right thing before too. If you’re in this camp, our discussion is over.

All your well wishing that the Internet isn’t going to evolve isn’t going to stop it from doing so.

Its speculative to think that CP80 will change things. I already have 30 years of history to back my opinion that the Internet cannot possibly be centrally governed or policed at a content level.

If you are so smart, please come up with a working solution. We welcome it.

Of course, you don’t have one. And don’t want one because you like the Internet just the way it is–big surprise.

Grow up. Act responsibly. And help find a solution.

Stop all your belly aching.

I’m not really that smart, nor did I say I ever was. Your emotionally defensive tone in this discussion doesn’t really lend you any credibility. If you focused more on the facts I’ve tried to lay out, you’ll make more headway than attacking me. Calling me names won’t really hide the flaws in your argument either.

There are fundamental flaws with this approach that have not been addressed, and until I see such a resolution, I refuse to accept this measure as a valid approach.

See my comments “John David Anderson” above. I’ve addressed both your points above.

And I address every single point in the post after yours. The solution does work. People have the right to choose.

I’ve worked with the Internet for over 10 years. I currently work as a developer and consultant for a web development agency. I’ve contributed to open source projects, maybe some you’ve heard of. I’m not completely unqualified to address this subject.

Great, then you will agree with us and some of the top engineers at Cisco and Foundry who also think that CP80 is a great solution.

That’s wonderful, I don’t have to have a better idea to know that this is a bad one.

Aaaah. So the limitation of your knowledge is exposed. Before you bother to shoot down a very workable solution, come up with better. Because if you cannot find a better solution, it just may be that this is the best solution possible.

Please read my comments above. I think a government-forced effort here is inappropriate, not to mention the impossibility of enforcing something like this

The government-forced effort here is no different than it is in the real world. And once ICANN, the UN and other countries get on board, it will be very enforceable.

You might as well compare in the Internet to the medieval town crier then. Best of luck with that approach. I don’t think the two mediums are similar enough to draw parallels.

And you would try to make the Internet out to be so unique, that no laws known to man are applicable.

We have sent men to the moon, eradicated any number of diseases, and accomplished any other number of monumental tasks—but regulate the Internet!

Yes we can.

I must have somehow offended you in order for you to accuse me of being short-minded and brainwashed. I apologize if that is so, and would politely ask that you remain respectful of my point of view.

And I would ask the same of you. Why do you take offense to someone trying to bring order to the chaos of the Internet. You comments come with just as much of a biting edge.

If it was plain and simple, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Besides, there are already many privately offered software packages that already do what CP80 is trying to enforce.

The privately offered software packages don’t work. According to a resent research study done for COPA, there are over 400 million pornographic web pages on the Internet today, and the best filters could only block 91% of those pages, leaving 36 million porn pages still available.

So you tell me. Do individuals have a working solution?

And as far as fixing the Internet. The question is not whether it can be done technically. It is a question of ownership and social policy.

And that will be sorted out soon enough.

How? I can write a script that publishes content, on 65000 ports, on any number of servers worldwide, in a manner of hours. Anyone can hire someone who could do the same. Please see my arguments above about enforcability. Its quite literally impossible.

Adding the script to a server is easy. We have done it for apache and made the 20 lines of code available. Other applications will adapt to the standard, because that is what technology does.

Enforceability really isn’t difficult. Once the standard is set and the Internet is properly organized, it will be easier to punish the violators.

Hitler was a leader. So is satan. He actually tried to force everyone to do the right thing before too. If you’re in this camp, our discussion is over.

So was George Washington and Jesus Christ. We are not forcing anyone to do anything. If you want your porn, you can still have it. But if you don’t want it, you don’t have that choice today. CP80 creates the tools, you make the choice.

Its speculative to think that CP80 will change things. I already have 30 years of history to back my opinion that the Internet cannot possibly be centrally governed or policed at a content level.

Why not. Its done for technological reasons. It just a matter of getting people such as yourself to realize that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Something must be done.

I’m not really that smart, nor did I say I ever was. Your emotionally defensive tone in this discussion doesn’t really lend you any credibility. If you focused more on the facts I’ve tried to lay out, you’ll make more headway than attacking me. Calling me names won’t really hide the flaws in your argument either.

Back at ya.

And for the record, the solution was developed by a number of talented technologists, businessmen, lawyers, therapists, doctors and other individuals who have been in there respective industry longer than you have.

And I am sorry if I am short, but this issue is such an important one. We are talking about saving lives and souls of our children, mothers, fathers, families and communities.

It is troubling to me that anyone would simply snub it as a bad idea without going through the process of trying to find a solution, only to realize just how good of a solution it is.

I am glad to apologize all day long if I have offended you, because that is not my intent. But I have had this conversation more times than you, and it is troubling that people really don’t understand how much of a problem Internet porn is.

It is sapping the strength of our country and all the nations of the world.

Please consider either supporting us or find a better solution.

Simply saying that won’t work and then traveling down the road without a care does no one any good.

There are fundamental flaws with this approach that have not been addressed, and until I see such a resolution, I refuse to accept this measure as a valid approach.

Then find a better.

And I address every single point in the post after yours. The solution does work. People have the right to choose.

Not when the government is making the content decisions.

Great, then you will agree with us and some of the top engineers at Cisco and Foundry who also think that CP80 is a great solution.

The short list of my humble credentials was only meant to illustrate that I’m not in the dark as far as Internet technologies go.

Your citing Cisco also seems more like an appeal to authority, which is a common fallacy. Cisco folks are just as prone to make mistakes as the rest of us. Please stick to the facts at hand.

If all the Cisco employees jumped of a cliff…

Aaaah. So the limitation of your knowledge is exposed. Before you bother to shoot down a very workable solution, come up with better. Because if you cannot find a better solution, it just may be that this is the best solution possible.

I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge is limited.

First, I don’t believe the solution is workable. Second, if the best solution possible is a *bad* one, I still won’t support it.

Here’s an alternate approach. If you want to rid yourself of the porn being “forced” into your home, home-school your children so you can monitor them constantly, discard your computers, cut the telecommunications cables going into your home, and purchase a mobile phone as a replacement (kept on your person at all times, of course).

This plan requires no legislation or global buy in, no mass enforcement, no government entanglements or empowerment, no judicial system strain and can be implemented rather quickly with a near 100% success rate.

If you don’t like this particular approach you may be getting closer to why I don’t like yours.

And you would try to make the Internet out to be so unique, that no laws known to man are applicable.

Well yeah, no laws that are currently used to regulate television. With TV, I require lots of money, time, and equipment to broadcast. If I were to broadcast, I could be found extremely easily and shut down.

To broadcast on the Internet, I just need to walk to a library, where I can publish in a matter of minutes. With a little research, I can also make myself incredibly hard to find.

I find little similarities between publishing content on the TV and on the Internet. Not many these days are TV station hobbyists.

We have sent men to the moon, eradicated any number of diseases, and accomplished any other number of monumental tasks—but regulate the Internet!

You’d think we’d be able cure the common cold or be able to educate our own children so they don’t need to be policed by Uncle Sam in order to live sexually healthy lives.

I don’t see how past efforts relating to medicine and the space program have a direct correlation to the issue at hand.

And I would ask the same of you. Why do you take offense to someone trying to bring order to the chaos of the Internet. You comments come with just as much of a biting edge.

I take no offense, I merely disagree. The two are different, though I don’t believe you would agree with me.

If my comments seem to carry a tone of frustration, maybe its because you’ve called me short-minded, brainwashed, and a belly-acher all in a few replies.

The privately offered software packages don’t work. According to a resent research study done for COPA, there are over 400 million pornographic web pages on the Internet today, and the best filters could only block 91% of those pages, leaving 36 million porn pages still available.

Seems odd, given that Verisign just reported that there are only about 120 million registered domains (as of March 2007), but I suppose its possible (almost 4 porn “web pages” per domain?).

http://www.verisign.com/Resources/Naming_Services_Resources/Domain_Name_Industry_Brief/index.html

There’s always room for improvement, but I don’t think 91% blockage is that bad. That would seem to block almost all accidental exposure.

If you’re looking for a bulletproof solution, you’ll need to implement the plan I outlined above.

Either that, or instill a hate for filth in your children through loving education.

CP80’s Port-based filtering is extremely easy to subvert. I do it every time I can’t check my email inside a corporate firewall. To think that *port* based filtering is somehow better than content and object based filtering is wholly incorrect.

Adding the script to a server is easy. We have done it for apache and made the 20 lines of code available. Other applications will adapt to the standard, because that is what technology does.

Yes, but standards are universally accepted and worked towards, not enforced by a single government in a global community. That’s called dictatorship, not standards. This is not an open source, community effort. This is a measure to force American government agency values on a global network.

Enforceability really isn’t difficult. Once the standard is set and the Internet is properly organized, it will be easier to punish the violators.

Easier, possibly. Easier doesn’t mean its practical yet, however. If such legislative engines were truly so empowering, then spam would have been extinct long ago.

So was George Washington and Jesus Christ.

You’ll notice that the difference between these two and the examples I offered earlier is that Washington and Christ fight for personal choice and education rather than forcing values on people.

How are you not forcing people when part of CP80 is a legislative measure?

I’m already making content choices in my home, and they are much more effective than a port-based system would be.

And for the record, the solution was developed by a number of talented technologists, businessmen, lawyers, therapists, doctors and other individuals who have been in there respective industry longer than you have.

An appeal to authority will not win this argument. Experienced people are not infallible. Please stick to the facts.

And I am sorry if I am short, but this issue is such an important one. We are talking about saving lives and souls of our children, mothers, fathers, families and communities.

I personally don’t believe that’s any excuse, and it doesn’t help your cause.

It is troubling to me that anyone would simply snub it as a bad idea without going through the process of trying to find a solution, only to realize just how good of a solution it is.

I haven’t snubbed anything. I’ve researched the measure and the facts surrounding it, and it doesn’t make sense from a technical or philosophical standpoint.

My worry is that this grand effort “for the children” is wholly misguided. If it ends up, somehow, being enacted, we’ll turn around and notice the harm we’ve done. We’ll have put more strain on our judicial system, continued our bad reputation as a global policemen, and have given our mediocre government the power to make content choices for us and our families.

Frankly, this measure smells a lot like the ailing welfare system.

Please consider either supporting us or find a better solution.

I’ll gladly choose the latter.

Simply saying that won’t work and then traveling down the road without a care does no one any good.

Nor does following after the wrong solution only because it seems to the be the best at hand.

http://smallplates.johndavidanderson.net/2007/03/20/why-cp80-wont-work/

My thoughts are summarized there.

Not when the government is making the content decisions.

Organizing information is NOT censorship. If it were, then you should go fight censorship with regard to your social security number, your license plate on your car, streets signs, bank routing numbers, telephone numbers, etc. etc.

When a government decides what you can and cannot access–THAT’S censorship. And that is NOT what I am talking about.

Ironically, however, the Internet governing bodies have made a decision for me and said everything can exist. That is a value judgement and that is censoring my ability to choose.

Your citing Cisco also seems more like an appeal to authority, which is a common fallacy. Cisco folks are just as prone to make mistakes as the rest of us. Please stick to the facts at hand.

um… okay… cukoo, cukoo.

I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge is limited.

Okay. You admit that you do not have a clear picture of what it would take to come up with a solution. So why weigh-in on the matter.

Why not try and solve the problem first, gain the knowledge, than speak with authority as to whether it is a good or bad idea.

First, I don’t believe the solution is workable. Second, if the best solution possible is a *bad* one, I still won’t support it.

As you have already stated, you are unqualified to make that judgement. Especially when people who are much smarter than you or I say it is workable and a good one.

Here’s an alternate approach. If you want to rid yourself of the porn being “forced” into your home, home-school your children so you can monitor them constantly, discard your computers, cut the telecommunications cables going into your home, and purchase a mobile phone as a replacement (kept on your person at all times, of course).

I love that answer.

DID EVERYONE HEAR HIS SOLUTION…

Glad to see you are a problem solver.

This plan requires no legislation or global buy in, no mass enforcement, no government entanglements or empowerment, no judicial system strain and can be implemented rather quickly with a near 100% success rate.

If you don’t like this particular approach you may be getting closer to why I don’t like yours.

Ya your right. Sounds just like the kind of statements you would find in the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights. The kind of thoughtful, society-building language that has made our country so great.

Why don’t you live in a country that operates the same way the Internet operates–on utter chaos and anarchy. See how you like it.

As long as you get paid in the end you happy, right. Nevermind everyone else’s problems. You’re safe.

Okay, I am getting a better picture now.

Well yeah, no laws that are currently used to regulate television. With TV, I require lots of money, time, and equipment to broadcast. If I were to broadcast, I could be found extremely easily and shut down.

That’s why the solution is enacting new laws and regulations that are specific to the Internet. Those laws and regulations would have a global reach.

To broadcast on the Internet, I just need to walk to a library, where I can publish in a matter of minutes. With a little research, I can also make myself incredibly hard to find.

Sure. But when you are found, are you prepared to pay the fines that you have accumulated?

There will always be crazy people. Can’t stop that. But that is a small percentage versus “legitimate” porn businesses that cannot afford to be here today and gone tomorrow.

I find little similarities between publishing content on the TV and on the Internet. Not many these days are TV station hobbyists.

Then I have a new word for you: C-O-N-V-E-R-G-A-N-C-E

Look it up.

You’d think we’d be able cure the common cold or be able to educate our own children so they don’t need to be policed by Uncle Sam in order to live sexually healthy lives.

I don’t see how past efforts relating to medicine and the space program have a direct correlation to the issue at hand.

Because, those efforts were far more difficult than solving the Internet pornography problem. And if we were able to solve those problems, we can certainly come up with a solution to this one.

I take no offense, I merely disagree. The two are different, though I don’t believe you would agree with me.

If my comments seem to carry a tone of frustration, maybe its because you’ve called me short-minded, brainwashed, and a belly-acher all in a few replies.

There no “seem” about it. If you want to stick to facts, then stick to them.

1). Technically, the solution works. We have already done it.

2). Socially, it could be implemented world wide, in the same way many international laws have been implemented.

Seems odd, given that Verisign just reported that there are only about 120 million registered domains (as of March 2007), but I suppose its possible (almost 4 porn “web pages” per domain?).

Not sure what you are saying here. There are an estimated 4.2 million pornographic websites with an estimated 400 million pages.

There’s always room for improvement, but I don’t think 91% blockage is that bad. That would seem to block almost all accidental exposure.

Even if it were 99% blockage, there would still be 4 million pages left. “Room for improvement is an understatement.” They don’t work.

You have to agree with that.

If you’re looking for a bulletproof solution, you’ll need to implement the plan I outlined above.

Your solution only works on a system-by-system basis. Since there is no enforcement tied to it, it is as broken as filters. It is workthless.

Either that, or instill a hate for filth in your children through loving education.

So we should allow children to buy alcohol, firearms, tobacco and drugs–because education is enough.

CP80’s Port-based filtering is extremely easy to subvert. I do it every time I can’t check my email inside a corporate firewall. To think that *port* based filtering is somehow better than content and object based filtering is wholly incorrect.

Of course you can subvert it. That is why the laws are in place. Push porn over a clean channel, get caught–you are in trouble. There are consequences.

Yes, but standards are universally accepted and worked towards, not enforced by a single government in a global community. That’s called dictatorship, not standards. This is not an open source, community effort. This is a measure to force American government agency values on a global network.

And ICANN is an open community? Are you kidding.

If you think they are such a wonderful group, try to get yourself elected to the board. Request their financial documents and see what happens.

I don’t remember voting for any of them. I don’t remember any country appointing anyone to their board.

Talk about dictatorship, please.

Easier, possibly. Easier doesn’t mean its practical yet, however. If such legislative engines were truly so empowering, then spam would have been extinct long ago.

Email is a different beast. That is for sure. There you truly have a problem of pluggin in, dumping emails, and running.

But not with destination portals. Those can’t use hit and run tactics and actually make money.

You’ll notice that the difference between these two and the examples I offered earlier is that Washington and Christ fight for personal choice and education rather than forcing values on people.

Once again you make a huge presumption that allowing everything is not forcing values on people.

Who made the rules for the Internet today. Was it put to a world vote or did a small group of people decide… hmm.

How are you not forcing people when part of CP80 is a legislative measure?

Because you could choose to access just the community ports or everything. Because you could choose to publish porn on the community port or the adult port. It just that when you publish on the community port, there are penalties–after the fact.

That choice.

I’m already making content choices in my home, and they are much more effective than a port-based system would be.

But how would your solution work for your children if they went next door to a neighbors house who had no filter and no accountability?

An appeal to authority will not win this argument. Experienced people are not infallible. Please stick to the facts.

I will stick to the facts, if you will accept them.

I haven’t snubbed anything. I’ve researched the measure and the facts surrounding it, and it doesn’t make sense from a technical or philosophical standpoint.

And yet you have not supplied one ounce of proof, no factual content at all to support your claims. None.

1. Technically ports could be easily used. That’s a fact.

2. Technology evolves. That’s a fact.

3. Government could adopt policy to police the Internet as they have done in the past for other trade-related issues.

You are only basing your opinion on your admitted limited understanding of the issue.

My worry is that this grand effort “for the children” is wholly misguided. If it ends up, somehow, being enacted, we’ll turn around and notice the harm we’ve done.

What harm are you speaking of?

We’ll have put more strain on our judicial system, continued our bad reputation as a global policemen, and have given our mediocre government the power to make content choices for us and our families.

Not that I agree with any of that. But lets look at the world in twenty years without any Internet regulation.

Society is no longer interested in marriage, families or children. Populations are dropping. The age of consent to sexual relationships is dropped to 12, making forms of child pornography legal. HIV is rampant, along with many other sexually transmitted diseases. Sex slavery in at an all time high along with sexual assaults and child abuse.

Oh wait, that’s not 20 years from now. That is happening as we speak.

Simply saying that won’t work and then traveling down the road without a care does no one any good.

Nor does following after the wrong solution only because it seems to the be the best at hand.

Amen. But it is not with hours, days, weeks, months and years that the CP80 solution has been developed.

I gladly await your solution that solves the following problems:

1). Empowers individual choice.

2). Does not require an advanced technical capability nor cost anything for the individual using it.

3). Does not violate First Amendment rights.

4). Is enforceable worldwide.

5). Works for all technologies, present and future.

You can always contact us at info@cp80.org.

http://smallplates.johndavidanderson.net/2007/03/20/why-cp80-wont-work/

My thoughts are summarized there.

No, absolutely not. You don’t have to discuss pornography as a moral issue, because it is also a child abuse and mental health issue–but don’t just dismiss the morality of it.

It is immoral. It is harmful, to the individuals that participate in it, to the individuals that use it and to the communities that tolerate it.

I WAS NOT “dismissing” the morality of pornography, but I don’t think it is relevant to your proposals to have the US Government BUTCHER the internet.
Part of being an adult is thinking dialectically — to be able to analyze different parts of an overall idea in a self contained manor.

Are you saying that if I don’t like your proposals from a purely technical point of view, that I must therefore support the worst kinds of pornography?

Honestly, I am not a fan of pornography, and I wouldn’t shed a tear if all but the most softcore erotica dissapeared from the earth.

Put simply, I am deeply offended by CP80 as a TECHNOLOGIST, not as a consumer of porn.

But of course, you try to link me to the worst elements of humanity because I object to your technically unfeasable ideas:

You should go spend a week in Darfur and see what anarchy is all about. Or go spend a week as a sex slave, kidnapped from your home to quench the thirst sexual predators who are energized by the hyper sexuality portrayed by Internet porn.

I mean, SEX SLAVES?
You’re using those poor unfortunent souls as intellectual cannon fodder against anyone who disagrees with you.

And, there are much simpler solutions that don’t involve big government.
Why not create your own “clean” private internet?
You could enforce whatever rules you wanted on it.
It could be all software based, and use the existing internet infostructure.
You could, for example, configure your computer and firewall to only allow you to VPN into this “clean” network, and do all of your websurfing through it.
If it became popular, I think most ISPs could do it on their end, thereby making it almost impossible for someone to bypass.

Anyway, as disgusted as I am with your lack of respect for sex slaves, I will make one last point that no one else seems to have made.

A much wealthier, and far more influencial lobby has been trying to do something very similar to what you are trying to do with the internet for over a decade now.

THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
They have been trying to get world governments to cut-out and blacklist countries and servers that distribute pirated material since the days of napster, through the use of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
They have also been trying to get draconian hardware restrictions mandated.

For all the money the MPAA has spent, they still can’t stop me, my roomates, and hundereds of millions of people around the world from consuming pirated goods, over the internet.

And it’s not like they have even made a dent in it either.

We canceled our cable a few months ago because it is actually MORE convenient to get our favorite TV shows delivered to us from Sweden, than to patronize American Cable companies.

thepiratebay.com offers high quality HD rips of the latest tv shows, stripped of commercials, for free.

Not to mention any type of porn you could want.

WIPO (A part of the UN), the US government, Big name entertainment industry law firms, and people from all across the world have been trying to stop copyright infringement for years, and have had almost no success.
Specifically, the MPAA went as far as bribing local police to harass thepiratebay.com and confiscate their hosting equipment, but thepiratebay.com was back up in days.
Most anemic threats from uninformed “big name” American attorneys end up being ridiculed on their legal threats page: http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Since porn is even more popular than pirated goods, what makes you think you have a snowballs chance in hell of scrubbing the internet of it?

I WAS NOT “dismissing” the morality of pornography, but I don’t think it is relevant to your proposals to have the US Government BUTCHER the internet.
Part of being an adult is thinking dialectically — to be able to analyze different parts of an overall idea in a self contained manor.

And what about all the non-adults that have unlimited access to Internet pornography. And don’t blame the parents. Even if parents chose not to have a computer in their home and teach their kids to stay away from it, that is not going to stop a curious teen from seeking out porn on the Internet.

There is no accoutability.

Are you saying that if I don’t like your proposals from a purely technical point of view, that I must therefore support the worst kinds of pornography?

Yes and no.

If you are not involved actively in finding a solution to this problem, but merely sit on the sidelines shooting down really solutions just because you have an opinion, yes then you are part of the problem.

Honestly, I am not a fan of pornography, and I wouldn’t shed a tear if all but the most softcore erotica dissapeared from the earth.

Put simply, I am deeply offended by CP80 as a TECHNOLOGIST, not as a consumer of porn.

Why? Because we are trying to change the Internet?

But of course, you try to link me to the worst elements of humanity because I object to your technically unfeasable ideas:

Nope. If you posted one really reason why it wouldn’t work, that would be different. Mostly you just huffed and puffed.

I mean, SEX SLAVES?
You’re using those poor unfortunent souls as intellectual cannon fodder against anyone who disagrees with you.

Then what is your solution… I’m all ears.

And, there are much simpler solutions that don’t involve big government.
Why not create your own “clean” private internet?
You could enforce whatever rules you wanted on it.
It could be all software based, and use the existing internet infostructure.
You could, for example, configure your computer and firewall to only allow you to VPN into this “clean” network, and do all of your websurfing through it.
If it became popular, I think most ISPs could do it on their end, thereby making it almost impossible for someone to bypass.

And what happens when a child who lives in a home with the “clean” network goes to his friends house who doesn’t have it. There’s no responsibility and no accountability.

A much wealthier, and far more influencial lobby has been trying to do something very similar to what you are trying to do with the internet for over a decade now.

THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
They have been trying to get world governments to cut-out and blacklist countries and servers that distribute pirated material since the days of napster, through the use of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
They have also been trying to get draconian hardware restrictions mandated.

For all the money the MPAA has spent, they still can’t stop me, my roomates, and hundereds of millions of people around the world from consuming pirated goods, over the internet.

At least we know you are an admitted thief.

Question: A man walks into a music store and steals a CD. A second man downloads a pirated song off the Internet. Whose the thief?

Just because it is happening on the Internet doesn’t make it okay or acceptable.

And it’s not like they have even made a dent in it either.

We canceled our cable a few months ago because it is actually MORE convenient to get our favorite TV shows delivered to us from Sweden, than to patronize American Cable companies.

thepiratebay.com offers high quality HD rips of the latest tv shows, stripped of commercials, for free.

Not to mention any type of porn you could want.

So you are advocating stealing. You think it is okay to steal property because you can on the Internet.

What if someone came to your home and stole your computer. Would that be okay with you, since you advocate theft?

WIPO (A part of the UN), the US government, Big name entertainment industry law firms, and people from all across the world have been trying to stop copyright infringement for years, and have had almost no success.
Specifically, the MPAA went as far as bribing local police to harass thepiratebay.com and confiscate their hosting equipment, but thepiratebay.com was back up in days.
Most anemic threats from uninformed “big name” American attorneys end up being ridiculed on their legal threats page: http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Since porn is even more popular than pirated goods, what makes you think you have a snowballs chance in hell of scrubbing the internet of it?

The above is an excellent reason why the world needs to regulate the Internet. It is a lawless environment that does as much harm as it does good.

Of course the above individual who is stealing content does so in the protected environment provided by a nation built on hard-working ethics.

I wonder, dequeued, what would you do if someone kicked down the door of your apartment and stole all of your property. And when you called the police to complain, they posted your complaint on a discussion board so that it could be laughed at.

At least have the courage to say what you really want to say. You don’t want the Internet changed because you like to steal and not get caught.

And because of your selfish endeavors, you would gladly allow pornography to continue existing, rather than find a solution that would possible solve the pornography problem, as well as make a thief like you accountable for your crimes.

Organizing information is NOT censorship. If it were, then you should go fight censorship with regard to your social security number, your license plate on your car, streets signs, bank routing numbers, telephone numbers, etc. etc.

Funny, I didn’t mention censorship. Good job trying to shift the argument on me though. You can claim victory on this straw-main point if you’d like, however.

Ironically, however, the Internet governing bodies have made a decision for me and said everything can exist. That is a value judgement and that is censoring my ability to choose.

The irony is that you have made the choice to purchase and bring the Internet into your home, and you’ve somehow decided to view that as force.

um… okay… cukoo, cukoo.

With this kind of a retort, I feel I’ve already made my final decision on this measure. If someone from CP80 only has this to say in my reply to my pointing out glaring fallacies in their own argument, they have something to hide.

Its your kind of sheep-like following of large corporate agendas that will get this nation into trouble.

Call me crazy, but I think on my own. I hope your infallible tech gods lead you to the overpowered-government and porn free utopia you’re after.

Okay. You admit that you do not have a clear picture of what it would take to come up with a solution. So why weigh-in on the matter.

Why not try and solve the problem first, gain the knowledge, than speak with authority as to whether it is a good or bad idea.

…

As you have already stated, you are unqualified to make that judgement. Especially when people who are much smarter than you or I say it is workable and a good one.

Dear goodness. Forgive me for approaching the throne for a moment, but…

I suppose there’s no reply to this, as you seem to only blindly follow people with “authority.” There’s no letters after my name, so there must be no value in my thinking.

Is that your official PR stance? Nice. Best of luck winning the masses over with that.

Ya your right. Sounds just like the kind of statements you would find in the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights. The kind of thoughtful, society-building language that has made our country so great.

My thoughts exactly. So, why are you for CP80 again?

Why don’t you live in a country that operates the same way the Internet operates–on utter chaos and anarchy. See how you like it.

As long as you get paid in the end you happy, right. Nevermind everyone else’s problems. You’re safe.

Okay, I am getting a better picture now.

Probably because you like to shift the argument and try to put words in my mouth in order to attempt to declare some sort of meaningless victory.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with chaos and countries and stuff. Did I ever suggest that…?

Nice try on shifting things again though. That makes for a real nice combo with the name calling.

Sure. But when you are found, are you prepared to pay the fines that you have accumulated?

Fines will stop everyone from doing bad things. Yep. That’ll work.

First you have to *find* me, and that’s the point