January 31st, 2007

CP-80 and Traffic Control

Traffic Control

Thanks to being alerted by Richard’s post, I was able to watch a screening of Traffic Control last night in Provo. This documentary debunks the fictionalized fantasy of pornography and highlights a new (and amazingly simple) idea that can allow parents the option to block such filth from their computers with success.

The internet is an amazing tool that has been used for much good. However, Satan has jumped on board to use it for his purposes, and hence we see the prolific permeation of pornography, whether we consciously seek it out or not. Popups, malware, advertisements, and other related items force this intrusive filth in front of us, casting aside our agency in the matter. Children are being subjected at increasingly younger ages to sexually abrasive material, thus desensitizing them and fostering within them a desire to act out what they have seen and satiate their innate curiosity.

The new idea I mentioned is CP-80, which stands for “Community Port 80”. The idea proposes that all porn sites be moved to a different internet port (of which there are around 65,000, the average internet user using only 4 or 5 of those). By separating the content onto another port, parents can choose to block that port from their homes, much like they can block an offensive TV channel. The content is controlled by the service provider, so by blocking the port, the content never reaches your home.

Free speech is protected and free agency and choice is preserved. It’s an amazingly simple solution to a complex problem. I applaud Ralph Yarro and his team for their hard work in promoting this effort.

Yesterday the Utah House of Representatives unanimously passed H.C.R. 3 (PDF), sending it to the floor of the Senate. Sadly, this is simply a resolution, a non-binding statement which serves as a petition of sorts to the federal government. We need more action on this matter, and less statements of concern.

Critics of this legislation cite the fact that the government should not be involved in legislating morality. Readers of this blog know how much I am in favor of limited government with clearly outlined powers (and the restriction thereof). The idealist in me realizes that the only effective way to combat the filth is to promulgate the gospel and its divine principles. The Atonement is the only thing that can repair such corrosive damage. On the other hand, the realist in me acknowledges that one must usually work in the current system to effect change. However, in rare cases of grassroot activism a revolution is formed. As the film’s narrator said, “the revolution starts with us”. Us means me. And you.

Will you be part of a revolution? Will our posterity look to us as agents of change, standing for truth and righteousness? Or will we be glossed over as apathetic “all is well in Zion” defeatists?

The choice is ours. Now.

Highlighted throughout the documentary was the story of Shelley Lubben, a former porn star, prostitute, drug addict, and abuse victim. This amazing woman has, with the help of God and her now-husband, made an 180 degree shift in her life. Her story is amazing, and her cause worthy of mention. In a Q&A session afterwards, she discussed that she feels it is her mission to deglamorize and demystify the porn industry. The created fantasy is just that—a big, fat, festering lie. It is an illusion which she, better than anybody else, can work to dispel.

As Shelley and several others discuss in the film, the cankerous addiction of pornography destroys families, careers, and individuals. Richard’s post linked to an excellent talk by Elder Holland, which cited the following quote from an associate:

“When I ask men who are sex addicts if they would want their wife or daughter to be in porn, 100 percent say, ‘No'” she said. “All of them say, ‘No.’ They want it to be somebody else’s wife or daughter. They know this material is damaging [and the practice degrading.]”

Indeed, the illusion of fantasy is fostered by the adversary to destroy and degrade what is intended to be sacred and spiritual. In that fantasy, the victims and subjects are always “somebody else”. Severe traffic control is needed, and it’s looking like CP-80 is the right tool for the job.

Read quotes about “pornography” on Quoty

71 Responses to “CP-80 and Traffic Control”

  1. Richard K Miller
    January 31, 2007 at 10:21 am #

    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.

  2. John David Anderson
    January 31, 2007 at 10:35 am #

    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.

  3. Connor
    January 31, 2007 at 10:40 am #

    Any plan that puts the onus of content flagging on the publishers isn’t going to work.

    I think that the self-governance model might work nicely, just as it is implemented on youtube, facebook, etc. Let sites be flaggable or reportable to some assigned authority, and if that site is flagged multiple times for offensive content, it then goes through a process to determine whether or not it needs to be moved to the “adult” channel as opposed to the “community” channel.

    I agree that it will be difficult to determine what goes where, but I think the idea is a great start. We need to talk about this issue, we need to hold pornographers accountable for their corrosive residue that is eating away at society, and we need to create a safe harbor for our children that works. This, I think, is a definite step in the right direction.

  4. John David Anderson
    January 31, 2007 at 11:11 am #

    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.

  5. Connor
    January 31, 2007 at 11:37 am #

    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.

    No, what I’m describing is some method of determining who gets put on a blockable channel. Filters are easily toppled by using a proxy. By putting the content on separate protocol you could simple shut down all traffic on that port.

    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.

    Why do we need to get the government (which is only one of hundreds on the Internet) involved?

    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. Ralph mentioned last night having met with Cisco and other companies who stated that they support the idea and that it can easily be leveraged with existing technologies. The government shouldn’t need to be involved, but because of ICANN and other initiatives it’s a sad reality one must deal with when wanting to change the entire structure of the internet.

    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.

    As one who is politically outspoken and a harsh critic of our current administration, I can’t agree with you more. However, I don’t think censorship or government control factors in at all. Repeatedly throughout the film and in the Q&A after, Ralph stressed the importance of protecting free speech.

    It’s just like on TV. Cable channels can put on whatever they want, though there are some restrictions on what you can show on which channels at what times, and other channels are easily made available for purveyors of porn and other sleaze. Parents then are enabled to shut off those channels completely, disallowing the smut from entering their homes. We should have the same option with the internet. No censorship, just choice.

  6. Carolynn Duncan
    January 31, 2007 at 11:40 am #

    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.

  7. Richard K Miller
    January 31, 2007 at 11:54 am #

    @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.

  8. John David Anderson
    January 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm #

    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.

  9. John David Anderson
    January 31, 2007 at 12:06 pm #

    @Carolynn

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

    — Benjamin Franklin

  10. Connor
    January 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm #

    What liberty is surrendered? Is your liberty lost because the Spice channel is PPV which allows you to block it? If anything, this allows you to choose to retain the liberty and moral agency of being able to choose what you do and do not want to view. Where’s the liberty in being subjected to porn by casually flipping channels?

    This isn’t temporary safety. Some attributions of that quote have Franklin saying security instead of safety. This isn’t temporary safety either. 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?

    This isn’t a top-down offer of surrendering liberty for some security as was the PATRIOT Act, for example. 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. This isn’t some deception by leaders seeking to infringe upon our liberties to hoarde up more power, this is concerned parents and voters wanting a way that they can choose what they let into their homes.

  11. David
    January 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm #

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

  12. Connor
    January 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    I’m not sure I want the government to define it for me or my family.

    How is such lascivious material currently regulated or restricted in regard to TV content, movies, magazines, advertising, etc?

    The government already does define it for you. It’s simply time we curb the tide of filth on the internet as well.

  13. David
    January 31, 2007 at 3:01 pm #

    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…

  14. John David Anderson
    January 31, 2007 at 3:37 pm #

    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.

  15. fontor
    February 1, 2007 at 6:26 am #

    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?

  16. GtRL
    February 2, 2007 at 5:58 pm #

    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.

  17. Carolynn Duncan
    February 2, 2007 at 6:41 pm #

    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.

  18. John David Anderson
    February 2, 2007 at 9:04 pm #

    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.

  19. GtRL
    February 2, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    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.

  20. John David Anderson
    February 3, 2007 at 10:46 am #

    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.

  21. GtRL
    February 3, 2007 at 3:07 pm #

    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.

  22. John David Anderson
    February 3, 2007 at 4:10 pm #

    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.

  23. GtRL
    February 8, 2007 at 3:03 pm #

    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.

  24. Connor
    February 16, 2007 at 10:50 am #

    Deseret News just released a story about Traffic Control. Check it out!

  25. Connor
    March 2, 2007 at 12:32 pm #

    Governor Huntsman signed HCR3 today.

  26. Connor
    March 3, 2007 at 7:04 pm #

    You can now buy the DVD of Traffic Control at the new website.

  27. dequeued
    March 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    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

  28. Matthew
    March 20, 2007 at 4:29 pm #

    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.

  29. John
    March 20, 2007 at 5:05 pm #

    …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.

  30. Matthew
    March 20, 2007 at 5:25 pm #

    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.

  31. John David Anderson
    March 20, 2007 at 6:33 pm #

    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.

  32. John David Anderson
    March 20, 2007 at 6:47 pm #

    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.

  33. Matthew
    March 21, 2007 at 8:03 am #

    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.

  34. Matthew
    March 21, 2007 at 8:24 am #

    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.

  35. John David Anderson
    March 21, 2007 at 9:41 am #

    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.

  36. Matthew
    March 21, 2007 at 2:38 pm #

    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.

  37. dequeued
    March 21, 2007 at 2:47 pm #

    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?

  38. Matthew
    March 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm #

    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.

  39. John David Anderson
    March 21, 2007 at 4:33 pm #

    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. Just try to nail down a Viagra spammer, and you’ll see how terribly and mundanely easy it is to find people who are using the Internet to make money on bad causes.

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

    Look it up.

    Its not in the dictionary. Must be newer than I thought.

    “CONVERGENCE” is, however. I looked that up instead, and it didn’t show me anything about how easy it is to publish any content I want on the TV with no cost and difficult traceability.

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

    Sure, its possible to set your webserver to serve up HTTP on another port. That’s not what I’m talking about.

    You’ve got me there though. I’ll wholeheartedly believe you can use TCP ports to broadcast things.

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

    Please provide an example. I’m not saying there is one, I just want to see one.

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

    And CP80 is 100%. Right.

    All I have to do to make CP80’s 100% go away is open up my laptop.

    At least with a commercial filter, it would catch bad content on a “good” port. CP80’s weighty hammer of enforcement is a laughable way to ensure blockage.

    Just because you threaten someone with a fine doesn’t magically turn the internet into a 100% blockable paradise, either.

    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. workthless.

    My mock example succeeds *because* it is a system by system solution. Every house hold *chooses* their own preferences.

    Sure there’s no *outside* enforcement, but I don’t need that to keep my family safe. Its a parent’s job, not the police’s.

    If push comes to shove, I’ll disconnect the service. No one is forcing the Internet into your home. Seems backward for you to join the club and then force your values on everyone.

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

    Maybe I should depend on the government to keep my children safe on the Internet while I am busy with other more important concerns.

    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.

    So wait, you talk about 99% blocked as unacceptable, and now blocking isn’t important anymore. Nice.

    I hope junior doesn’t ruin his life too much before the lawsuit is all up and done with. That’ll teach the pornographers for sure.

    And ICANN is an open community? Are you kidding.

    I don’t see how I could be, especially since I never mentioned ICANN. Nice of you to rip them to shreds though, since I never even mentioned them.

    This whole argument shifting thing is actually pretty humorous at this point.

    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.

    So CP80 is only a measure that stops larger money-making portals? You don’t really care about a virus that installs a porn-serving website on office workstations?

    I thought CP80 was against all porn.

    And I can’t imagine how spam isn’t profitable. Do you think people do it just for fun?

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

    LOL

    Please give me the name of the person who is pumping porn forcibly into your house, and I will take immediate action.

    This isn’t content that is wafting through the air. An internet connection is not mandatory in US homes. No one is forcing anything on you.

    You are entering a worldwide network, of your own choice, most likely at some cost, and now you want everyone to change they way they do things.

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

    A small group of people. You win.

    Will they come to my house and fine me if I publish something they don’t agree with in the wrong place? Will they fine me if I write my own protocol and run it on any port I want?

    That’s so… limiting.

    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.

    Okay. Hypothetical example: Let’s say if you post one more comment on this blog, you’re going to get slapped with a big fat fine. If you’d like to comment, please do so by posting a message on cp80.org and emailing me.

    Look – no one is forcing you to do anything – you can still post, after all. No choice lost.

    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?

    Wait, what if they have guns and drugs and atomic weapons over there too?! Dude something needs to be done about this irresponsible government that lets my kids do whatever they want these days.

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

    Well, I can’t possibly accept your facts unless you work at Cisco and have lots of degrees and experience. I only, yet readily, accept facts as they are handed to me by smarter people than I.

    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.

    Please see my numerical examples of enforcement above, including my references to the amount of current registered domains at Verisign.

    1. Yes, we can use other ports than 80 to distribute web content. Great point.

    2. Yes it evolves. Evolution is not the same thing as overt genetic manipulation by government officials, though.

    3. Yeah, just like the .xxx domain idea. That worked great.

    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.

    And every single one of those items has been conclusively proven to be directly related to the lack of Internet regulation.

    I don’t know many who would share that view.

    Sure, Internet porn is a factor, but these sort of activities are already threatened by legislation. I don’t see how an additional legislative threat is really going to help out here.

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

    Oh. I see. You had lots of really important people work on it together. That makes it infallible and untouchable by lowlyminds such as mine.

    I should probably just give in and let you smart people make decisions about my family for me. That’s what CP80 is all about, after all.

    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.

    1. Commercial software.

    2. Commercial software.

    3. Commercial software.

    4. I don’t believe this is a worthy goal. Values differ worldwide. To press my values on other cultures isn’t ever going to work.

    5. Commercial software, though you can’t ever guarantee anything to work with all future technologies.

  40. dequeued
    March 21, 2007 at 6:53 pm #

    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.

    You talk about accountablity.
    What level of accountability do you propose?
    Right now the chinese have ammended their laws so that every domain registerd by a chinese citizen must be declaired with their government, to aid with censorship.

    I pride myself on living in a FREE country.

    How is your censorship any different from the censorship in Saudi Arabia or China?
    Because you are censoring to “protect” people?
    Because you think it is the right thing to do?

    I have news for you, so do they.

    “But we arent censoring, we just want to relagete impure content (IE Anything we say is impure) to a dusty corner of the intenet”

    Just as bad.
    You would in effect be setting up an infostructure for censorship of anything.
    And it’s a slippery slope from there.

    You’re good intentions would doom us.

    Luckily your plan is too hairbrained to work.

    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.

    I am shooing down your idea because it is foolish, from a technical perspective.
    This has nothing to do with porn.

    Besides, if porn really is a problem (and I am not convinced it is), then it is just a symptom of deeper problems with our society.

    If porn is a vice, like drug use, then it doesn’t make sense to go after porn that people crave, you should instead try to figure out why people would want porn to begin with.

    I certainly don’t seek out hardcore porn, and I don’t know anyone who does.

    When I was 12, my parents explained to me that women were not sex objects, but human beings with emotions and dignity.
    My father then went out and got me my first issue of playboy.

    I have had a private internet connection since then and have never sought out the really disgusting stuff.
    I think most people with a healthy attitude about sex don’t.

    But, then again, I didn’t grow up in FLYOVER COUNTRY.
    Maybe in more conservative areas people are more repressed so they seek out more intense porn.

    When I had to stay in Salt Lake city on my way to LA, the feeling of pent-up rage and passive-agression was palpable, even behind everyone’s insincere smiles.
    It’s no wonder there are so many porn nuts out there.

    My first exposure to pornography was in a controlled environment, where my parents could explain it to me, and put in context, and remove my curiousity about it, therby robbing it of any power over me.

    If a kid doesn’t know about sex by the time he is 12, then it is the parents responsibility if their kid is exposed to it without proper background.

    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.

    Yes, you have just exposed a major flaw in your plan.
    What if, in a world where you have your way and we have to somehow use community port 80, a child goes to his friend’s house and gets access to the porn port (tcp 81)?

    How is this any different from your plan?

    Understimulated and curious teenagers have been getting porn for decades, and will continue to.

    Why? Because we are trying to change the Internet?

    Yes, exactly, thank you for putting it so simply.

    You people don’t really seem to know what you’re talking about.

    I mean, lol, what if I want to transfer porn over:
    ftp (tcp port 21)
    rtsp (udp 554)
    bittorrent (random)
    smtp (tcp 25)

    And I am sure clever hackers would be able to smuggle porn around in DNS requests (udp 53)
    I myself have used ICMP to transfer data, why would people not be able to do that?

    So no, I don’t want people like you muddling with the internets.

    Just go back to crusading against MTV, they will be out of business soon anyway, which brings me to my next point:

    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.

    Duh, the guy who actually stole physical property is the thief.

    The person who downloaded a song may have violated the terms of copyright, and, if so, may be liable for damages in a civil court, but he is no theif.
    Just because something is unlawful doesn’t make it morally wrong — the law and morally are rarely in parity.

    And just because I am disrupting someone’s delecate business model with modern technology doesn’t make me wrong.
    It’s called PROGRESS and CAPITALISM, these are founding principles of our country.

    but I don’t expect you guys to understand, since you’re all clearly big fans of expanding the government.

    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?

    Stop with those propagandistic analogies already!
    Not even the record industry uses it anymore.

    I have a question for you: If downloading a file was morally identical to holding up a record store at gunpoint, why am I not handcuffed and brought up on robbery charges when I download a song of Limewire?
    Even the law agrees with me!

    No, only with the most attenuated logic could it be considered stealing.

    And most of the music I download, I pay for, at http://www.allofmp3.com/
    Some enterprising Russians set up this site a few years ago, where they actually make money selling music online, because they charge market rates, not inflated merchantalist rates like they do here in the states.

    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.

    Oh noes!!
    People are using that there internets to download pornography and pirated softwares!
    Welcome to 1994.
    The fact is, the internet has been a powerful force for good, and has been reshaping and streamlining our economy for the better for the duration of its existence, and it is reactionary to oppose technological advancement.
    If it really bothers you so much, stop trying to impose your beliefs on us, and go live with the Amish.

    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.

    Well, seeing as how Physical property actually has measureable value, not subjective value, like INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, I would be pretty upset.
    But just because a business is being deprived of a theoretical sale, does not equal theft.
    If I walk home from the train instead of taking a cab, am I stealing from the cab company?

    Of course you solution would be to make a law forcing me to take
    the cab…

    THE BIBLE is very clear about what stealing is, and why it is wrong.
    The active part of theft that makes it such an insidous sin is that you are depriving the rightful owner of use of their property.
    Unless I have deprived someone of some measurable asset, I have not stolen a thing.

    I pride myself on my high morals, and would never steal form anyone.
    You should not go around accusing people of being theives.

    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.

    Absolutely, you’re correct.
    The internet made me who I am today, and you want to take away those opprotunities from others, and ration out free and open information access.

    I got my first unix shell account when I was 14, and by the time I was out of high school I had years of experience using unix, and experience with many programming langauges and operating environments, thanks to the internet, and it has been invaluble to my career.
    I also made many new friends around the world while collaberating on projects.
    And you want to rob future generations of these opprotunities.

    You people are like the goths sacking rome.
    Why don’t you go burn down the nations libraries too, I hear they might have some porn in them.

  41. Matthew
    March 21, 2007 at 9:59 pm #

    You talk about accountablity.
    What level of accountability do you propose?
    Right now the chinese have ammended their laws so that every domain registerd by a chinese citizen must be declaired with their government, to aid with censorship.

    That’s censorship. And that is not what CP80 proposes.

    I pride myself on living in a FREE country.

    How is your censorship any different from the censorship in Saudi Arabia or China?
    Because you are censoring to “protect” people?
    Because you think it is the right thing to do?

    You live in a country of laws and regulations that assure the FREEDOM you treasure so highly.

    Like I said. If you want to life in the chaotic FREEDOM you are describing, move to Darfur.

    “But we arent censoring, we just want to relagete impure content (IE Anything we say is impure) to a dusty corner of the intenet”

    Why is putting porn in area where it can be more easily managed always refered to as a ghetto or dusty corner. Is the playboy channel a ghetto, the spice channel, or any of the other porn channels. They are organized and allow adults to choose to access them or block them.

    Why is applying that logic to the Internet so impossible for you to grasp?

    You would in effect be setting up an infostructure for censorship of anything.
    And it’s a slippery slope from there.

    So admit. That is isn’t censorship. Your only concern is that an evil empire could use it for censorship.

    Well sure. But an evil empire could use our phone numbers, social security numbers, visa card data, or any other method of organization to censor and oppress a people.

    So why aren’t kicking and screaming about those?

    You’re good intentions would doom us.

    Luckily your plan is too hairbrained to work.

    A very pesemistic view. And we will see.

    I am shooing down your idea because it is foolish, from a technical perspective.
    This has nothing to do with porn.

    Still waiting for exactly why the technical solution will not work. Strip out the social policy. That is a different element all together. Why will ports not work?

    I certainly don’t seek out hardcore porn, and I don’t know anyone who does.

    Teens don’t know the difference. They want to learn about sex and find people having sex with animals or raping women. And they start to form their ideals of sex on those experiences.

    When I was 12, my parents explained to me that women were not sex objects, but human beings with emotions and dignity.
    My father then went out and got me my first issue of playboy.

    What can I say. Good for you. That is simply not the norm.

    I have had a private internet connection since then and have never sought out the really disgusting stuff.

    Well, hey as long as it not the REALLY disgusting stuff, just the disgusting stuff, I guess you are well adjusted…

    But, then again, I didn’t grow up in FLYOVER COUNTRY.
    Maybe in more conservative areas people are more repressed so they seek out more intense porn.

    Maybe.

    My first exposure to pornography was in a controlled environment, where my parents could explain it to me, and put in context, and remove my curiousity about it, therby robbing it of any power over me.

    Except for the slightly disgusting stuff. By the way, are you married?

    If a kid doesn’t know about sex by the time he is 12, then it is the parents responsibility if their kid is exposed to it without proper background.

    Agreed. But pornography is not sex. Not even close.

    Yes, you have just exposed a major flaw in your plan.
    What if, in a world where you have your way and we have to somehow use community port 80, a child goes to his friend’s house and gets access to the porn port (tcp 81)?

    If an individual chooses to have Open accesses in his home, he is responsible for it. And just as if the owner of a gun left it lying around and someone shot and killed a friend with it, that individual would bare some responsibility. Same with CP80. Its your connection, you can have what you want on it, but you are responsible for it and any one that uses it.

    Understimulated and curious teenagers have been getting porn for decades, and will continue to.

    Sure, but the porn on the Internet is darker, more violent and more disturbing than anything kids could get their hands on in pre-Internet days.

    Yes, exactly, thank you for putting it so simply.

    Okay, at least you are honest.

    I mean, lol, what if I want to transfer porn over:
    ftp (tcp port 21)
    rtsp (udp 554)
    bittorrent (random)
    smtp (tcp 25)

    Well, when you got caught, you would have to pay fines of anywhere from $5,000 on up. Furthermore, private individuals could sue you. You might also have domain names and IP Addresses removed.

    So no, I don’t want people like you muddling with the internets.

    And I don’ t need a selfish technocrat like you trying to rule the world with your foolish notion of what is “FREE”.

    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.

    Duh, the guy who actually stole physical property is the thief.

    Geez, I thought that was obvious. They both are thieves. It doesn’t matter what medium the song comes it, if you take something without the owner’s permission or without compensating him, you are stealing.

    The person who downloaded a song may have violated the terms of copyright, and, if so, may be liable for damages in a civil court, but he is no theif.

    Downloading music that you haven’t paid for and that the owner requires payment for use is stealing–and you think you have a good moral compass to know what is wrong and what is right?

    Just because something is unlawful doesn’t make it morally wrong — the law and morally are rarely in parity.

    Agreed. But Thou Shalt Not Steal lays it out pretty plainly for me. You are stealing.

    And just because I am disrupting someone’s delecate business model with modern technology doesn’t make me wrong.

    Yes it does. Talk about a slippery slope. So don’t covet, unless you covet over the Internet then its ok. Don’t steal, unless you steal over the Internet. then its okay. Don’t murder, unless you murder over the Internet, then its okay.

    What are you saying?

    It’s called PROGRESS and CAPITALISM, these are founding principles of our country.

    No, what you are talking about is THEFT and CRIME.

    but I don’t expect you guys to understand, since you’re all clearly big fans of expanding the government.

    Well if people like you wouldn’t steal and pornographers would keep their wares behind password protected entrances, we wouldn’t need expanded governments, now would we.

    I have a question for you: If downloading a file was morally identical to holding up a record store at gunpoint, why am I not handcuffed and brought up on robbery charges when I download a song of Limewire?
    Even the law agrees with me!

    That wasn’t the comparison I was making. But, its more a fact that so many people are doing it, the music industry is having a hard time keeping up.

    But for example’s sake, if you give me your name, address, phone number and a list of the music you have stolen, I will gladly pass it along to the music industry and we can see what happens.

    What do you think?

    No, only with the most attenuated logic could it be considered stealing.

    Said the man who was trying to rationalize his thievery.

    And most of the music I download, I pay for, at http://www.allofmp3.com/

    Well, as long as most of it is paid for I guess the rest of the stolen music is okay then.

    Oh noes!!
    People are using that there internets to download pornography and pirated softwares!

    Are you suggesting that its okay, because its the Internet. So you were upset then when they outlawed child pornography. How dare they ban that on the Internet. Is that where you are heading?

    Well, seeing as how Physical property actually has measureable value, not subjective value, like INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, I would be pretty upset.

    So your bank account that is pretty much just digital data. I mean your not actually hiding the green stuff under your bed, are you.

    So you wouldn’t be upset if someone drained your bank account or used your credit card numbers to purchase stuff–because that’s all just intellecutal property. It’s not real.

    How about it?

    Didn’t think so.

    But just because a business is being deprived of a theoretical sale, does not equal theft.
    If I walk home from the train instead of taking a cab, am I stealing from the cab company?

    The real comparison is if you take a cab and then don’t pay the cab. But lets say you have a contract with an employer for you to do some software development. You do a project for him and at the end of it he says I’m not paying for it because there is no real property–its just digital data, 1-0s.

    That’s stealing. If you take property–and copyrighted material is property, that’s what the copyright means–without the owner permission or compensating, you are stealing, stealing, stealing.

    Of course you solution would be to make a law forcing me to take
    the cab…

    No, a law would require you to pay the cab for the ride or for the business to pay you for your work.

    THE BIBLE is very clear about what stealing is, and why it is wrong.
    The active part of theft that makes it such an insidous sin is that you are depriving the rightful owner of use of their property.

    The license of a song is permission from the artist (owner) who created the song (property) that gives you the right to listen to the music in exchange for a fee. If you take the song without paying, YOU ARE STEALING.

    Unless I have deprived someone of some measurable asset, I have not stolen a thing.

    If the owner intends for the song to be available for sale only, and you download it for free, you have stolen it.

    Wake up and stop making excuses and stop rationalizing your behavior. Own up to it.

    I pride myself on my high morals, and would never steal form anyone.
    You should not go around accusing people of being theives.

    You are stealing. Now you know. So stop.

    Absolutely, you’re correct.
    The internet made me who I am today, and you want to take away those opprotunities from others, and ration out free and open information access.

    No just the stealing songs and looking at slightly disturbing porn instead of the REALLY disturbing stuff.

    I got my first unix shell account when I was 14, and by the time I was out of high school I had years of experience using unix, and experience with many programming langauges and operating environments, thanks to the internet, and it has been invaluble to my career.
    I also made many new friends around the world while collaberating on projects.
    And you want to rob future generations of these opprotunities.

    All of which could still happen with an Internet organized and categorized. In fact, kids would have more of an opportunity becuase you wouldn’t have to worry about kids running into porn, being addicted or approached by a sexual predator.

    You people are like the goths sacking rome.

    You’re like Nero, just watching Rome burn.

    Why don’t you go burn down the nations libraries too, I hear they might have some porn in them.

    Why don’t you start stealing from all the stores you patronize and fight for the right for pornographers to post their smut all over the walls of schools, churches and homes.

    So your neighborhood will be just like your Internet experience.

  42. Matthew
    March 23, 2007 at 12:58 am #

    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.

    Actually you did, twice, in your previous posts.

    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.

    I view the Internet as an extension of a real world community; therefore, I would expect a similar expectation of order and decency.

    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.

    We were never trying to make the Internet porn free. We just want to create reliable tools that allow individuals to control their environments. Those tools really don’t exist.

    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.

    That is absolutely not what I said. I simply qualified where the solution came from and requested that you dug a little deeper before making a final decision.

    First you have to *find* me, and that’s the point. Just try to nail down a Viagra spammer, and you’ll see how terribly and mundanely easy it is to find people who are using the Internet to make money on bad causes.

    As I already stated, email is a different beast. But to the extent that an email draws from a website, it could be better dealt with. And for a business that can’t afford to jump around, those individuals would be very trackable.

    “CONVERGENCE” is, however. I looked that up instead, and it didn’t show me anything about how easy it is to publish any content I want on the TV with no cost and difficult traceability.

    You know that television, music, gaming, telecommunications of all kind are converging onto the Internet. Many people will receive all of their services via their broadband connection. Dequeued is one example of a person who is.

    Now instead of 1000 channels, people will have 4.2 million. Which great, but managing it isn’t.

    At least with a commercial filter, it would catch bad content on a “good” port.

    91% of the time. But if a curious teen finds the other 36 million pages, it won’t catch anything.

    Just because you threaten someone with a fine doesn’t magically turn the internet into a 100% blockable paradise, either.

    Agreed. But it will make more people accountable and work towards a higher percentage of safety.

    My mock example succeeds *because* it is a system by system solution. Every house hold *chooses* their own preferences.

    Ya, but if your child goes next door to surf where there is no solution, then what. No one is responsible.

    Sure there’s no *outside* enforcement, but I don’t need that to keep my family safe. Its a parent’s job, not the police’s.

    But as a parent, if your child were accessing porn via a library, school computer or a hot spot, wouldn’t that bother you?

    To me, it is similar to wanting my children not to smoke, but having a library, school or business provide free cigarettes.

    If push comes to shove, I’ll disconnect the service.

    And that is what bothers me. Should you really have to? Is it so impossible to imagine an Internet that allows individual choice?

    I don’t think you should have to disconnect.

    Maybe I should depend on the government to keep my children safe on the Internet while I am busy with other more important concerns.

    The government does its part to try and create safer environments for people to live in. It is a balancing act between liberty and danger.

    A difficult balancing act to be sure, but there is value in some governmental intervention.

    So wait, you talk about 99% blocked as unacceptable, and now blocking isn’t important anymore. Nice.

    Blocking is important. But it is the standard and enforcement that ultimately make it work.

    I don’t see how I could be, especially since I never mentioned ICANN. Nice of you to rip them to shreds though, since I never even mentioned them.

    Not ripping. But what are they doing to solve this problem? They could be taking a leadership position, but aren’t.

    So CP80 is only a measure that stops larger money-making portals? You don’t really care about a virus that installs a porn-serving website on office workstations?

    Absolutely, but when those are found they can get yanked down even quicker, because now there is an expectation of a clean community.

    People simply don’t shrug their shoulders and think, ug more porn.

    I thought CP80 was against all porn.

    No. They have stated that because certain “legal” forms of pornography would be protected by the First Amendment, those forms of pornography have a right to exist on the Internet.

    They simply want to create a method for individuals to choose whether or not they want to block or access that “legal” porn.

    And I can’t imagine how spam isn’t profitable. Do you think people do it just for fun?

    They do make money off of it. But if more order and accountability were brought to the Internet, maybe it would become more difficult to spam.

    Please give me the name of the person who is pumping porn forcibly into your house, and I will take immediate action.

    You mean like a hijacked domain name that spawns a maze of pop ups? It happens.

    This isn’t content that is wafting through the air. An internet connection is not mandatory in US homes. No one is forcing anything on you.

    You are absolutely right. But does that mean we can’t expect more from it?

    You are entering a worldwide network, of your own choice, most likely at some cost, and now you want everyone to change they way they do things.

    No. I think the powers that be should re-evaluate what the people of the world want, and not assume that they want everything in a chaotic manner.

    A small group of people. You win.

    Will they come to my house and fine me if I publish something they don’t agree with in the wrong place? Will they fine me if I write my own protocol and run it on any port I want?

    That’s so… limiting.

    Is it. If ports and enforcement were put in place, would that prevent you from writing your own protocol and using available ports.

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

    Because they could still choose to publish content over the wrong port. They would just get in trouble if they did. They would have all the same access they had before, with the exception of using a designated range of ports for adult content.

    Okay. Hypothetical example: Let’s say if you post one more comment on this blog, you’re going to get slapped with a big fat fine. If you’d like to comment, please do so by posting a message on cp80.org and emailing me.

    The community ports strives to create a community with respective rules and values. If you went into a grocery store and started yelling profanities, it wouldn’t be acceptable.

    Why is it on the Internet.

    Wait, what if they have guns and drugs and atomic weapons over there too?! Dude something needs to be done about this irresponsible government that lets my kids do whatever they want these days.

    People are responsible for what they have in there homes, whether it is guns, drugs or atomic bombs. That the point. They would be held accountable.

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

    That is a matter of opinion. But that is what we are talking about. Today, the Internet is somewhat chaotic, I mean they are hunting down child pornographers, but not other disturbing forms, where those involved may or may not have voluntarily acted.

    There is a bit of hypocrisy about what is acceptable and what is not. What is regulated and what is not. Some social norms are defended some are not.

    Should we expect/want more?

    I should probably just give in and let you smart people make decisions about my family for me. That’s what CP80 is all about, after all.

    No, not at all. I appreciate all of your comments. But is no regulation really the answer?

    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.

    1. Commercial software.

    2. Commercial software.

    3. Commercial software.

    4. I don’t believe this is a worthy goal. Values differ worldwide. To press my values on other cultures isn’t ever going to work.

    5. Commercial software, though you can’t ever guarantee anything to work with all future technologies.

    4 is the real catch, because it ruins all the other elements. That what this whole argument boils down to, doesn’t it.

    I appreciate your comments. I hope that a solution will come forward that offers both the freedom and protection that everyone is seeking.

    I think CP80 is that solution.

    I apoligize if I have been glib, short or otherwise offended you.

  43. John David Anderson
    March 23, 2007 at 10:13 am #

    As I already stated, email is a different beast. But to the extent that an email draws from a website, it could be better dealt with. And for a business that can’t afford to jump around, those individuals would be very trackable.

    Email is just traffic on another port. I don’t understand why CP80 would ignore ports 25 or 110 and focus on 80, hoping to lock things down.

    A quick look at your junk mail folder will tell you that most spam is just a way to get people to visit a site anyway. This is especially so with porn spam.

    91% of the time. But if a curious teen finds the other 36 million pages, it won’t catch anything.

    Nice argument. Well, if you have 99.999999% blocked, and a curious teen finds one of the four pages left, it won’t catch anything either. Be serious.

    Please also explain how PORT based filtering could ever, ever, be more effective than content-based filtering. At least if the teen in question finds a page that contains just one naughty word (regardless of what port or protocol was used) it ends up being blocked.

    Ya, but if your child goes next door to surf where there is no solution, then what. No one is responsible.

    What about the parent?!

    Yeah, the federal government should be more vigilant in tracking my teenager. Dude, the *parent* is the responsible one. If you can’t trust your neighbors, don’t let your children go over there.

    How does CP80 fix this? What if my evil neighbor isn’t blocking the “Open” ports? Then what.

    But as a parent, if your child were accessing porn via a library, school computer or a hot spot, wouldn’t that bother you?

    To me, it is similar to wanting my children not to smoke, but having a library, school or business provide free cigarettes.

    There’s already legislation in place to protect children from filth in public places. Check out the Childrens’ Internet Protection Act.

    And that is what bothers me. Should you really have to? Is it so impossible to imagine an Internet that allows individual choice?

    I don’t think you should have to disconnect.

    I’d do it if I thought my children needed it. No filter, no amount of legislation, no amount of technical trickery will ever keep determined individuals from finding what they’re after on the Internet.

    Blocking is important. But it is the standard and enforcement that ultimately make it work.

    Make what work? What is the goal of CP80, then? If the goal isn’t about how much porn you can block, then why all this magic about Internet “channels” and stuff? I thought the whole point behind channels was that you can pick and choose and block and open.

    This is making less and less sense.

    Absolutely, but when those are found they can get yanked down even quicker, because now there is an expectation of a clean community.

    People simply don’t shrug their shoulders and think, ug more porn.

    The current spam bot problem proves that this simply is not the case. There is a clear expectation of a spam free community, yet the bots and spam continue.

    No. They have stated that because certain “legal” forms of pornography would be protected by the First Amendment, those forms of pornography have a right to exist on the Internet.

    They simply want to create a method for individuals to choose whether or not they want to block or access that “legal” porn.

    Please don’t shift the argument. My original comment was about porn in emails and served up by bots, not legal and illegal porn. If CP80 doesn’t care about non portal porn, then it doesn’t care about all porn.

    You mean like a hijacked domain name that spawns a maze of pop ups? It happens.

    So let me get this straight. You pay $20 a month, of your own volition, to get Internet access. You type in a domain name, without any outside coercion, and you are met with porn.

    I think I’m missing the part where you were forced.

    No. I think the powers that be should re-evaluate what the people of the world want, and not assume that they want everything in a chaotic manner.

    I have an idea: let the *world* decide what the world wants, rather than a single government headed up by a small committee.

    Is it. If ports and enforcement were put in place, would that prevent you from writing your own protocol and using available ports.

    Can I publish whatever content I want on port 80 under the ICPA?

    Because they could still choose to publish content over the wrong port. They would just get in trouble if they did. They would have all the same access they had before, with the exception of using a designated range of ports for adult content.

    LOL

    So, people can “choose” whatever they want, but get in trouble with the govermnent if they don’t do it a certain way? That’s classic.

    One thing you’re forgetting is that some users of the Internet are *publishers*. Sure, under CP80 the end user can theoretically just decide what “channels” to listen to, but what about publishers? They have to cross check all their content with some government standard, hoping to evade any complaints that might come their way. That isn’t choice. We have freedom to publish already.

    The community ports strives to create a community with respective rules and values. If you went into a grocery store and started yelling profanities, it wouldn’t be acceptable.

    Why is it on the Internet.

    The Internet isn’t owned by a private party who dislikes profanity. If I’m on private property (like a grocery store), the owner can have me removed.

    Please realize that because the US doesn’t own the Internet, they really have no right to press their agenda on it.

    Its like me coming over for dinner and dismissing you from the table because I don’t like your social policy ideas.

    People are responsible for what they have in there homes, whether it is guns, drugs or atomic bombs. That the point. They would be held accountable.

    Right.

    But don’t expect the police to run a full background check and search the house for “bad” stuff before your kids are allowed to enter. CP80 seems to expect that Uncle Sam will make sure that Bobby’s house is porn free before my son enters. That’s ludicrous, by its own tenets (what if Bobby’s dad is an “Open” ports fan?).

    Should I sue the police because I found out my son slept over at a meth house? You seem to want to task them with making sure it was at least porn free first. It doesn’t make sense.

    Frankly, it assumes the parent is irresponsible. It is a parent’s job to know their children’s friends.

    CP80 will not help the “kids at the neighbors house” problem. No government measure should need to.

    There is a bit of hypocrisy about what is acceptable and what is not. What is regulated and what is not. Some social norms are defended some are not.

    Should we expect/want more?

    That’s because it is different for everyone! Its not hypocrisy, its diversity of opinion!

    Should we expect more. Of course. Should I try to force my views on my neighbors, no.

    No, not at all. I appreciate all of your comments. But is no regulation really the answer?

    I don’t remember saying it was. What I’m saying is that this sort of regulation is *not* the answer.

    Regulation gives too much power to the government, a body that can’t even make content decisions *now*. COPA was struck down by a federal judge yesterday. There’s no way ICPA is going to get anywhere. This kind of regulation is proving not to be the answer.

  44. Matthew
    March 23, 2007 at 2:26 pm #

    Email is just traffic on another port. I don’t understand why CP80 would ignore ports 25 or 110 and focus on 80, hoping to lock things down.

    It doesn’t focus only on 80. I only said email spam is more difficult, but it is still covered.

    A quick look at your junk mail folder will tell you that most spam is just a way to get people to visit a site anyway. This is especially so with porn spam.

    And to the extent that spam linked to and pulled pornographic content, that content would need to be served over a designated adult port so that it could be easily blocked.

    Nice argument. Well, if you have 99.999999% blocked, and a curious teen finds one of the four pages left, it won’t catch anything either. Be serious.

    Sure, but the legislation and Internet governance elements can still hold those responsible for allowing the teen to access porn without parental permission or who pushed over a clean port.

    Please also explain how PORT based filtering could ever, ever, be more effective than content-based filtering. At least if the teen in question finds a page that contains just one naughty word (regardless of what port or protocol was used) it ends up being blocked.

    Unless they are image-based pages and avoid the language that would set off a filter. There are ways around technology, that is why the legislative and Internet governance elements are so important.

    What about the parent?!

    Even if filters were in every home, not everyone is proficient at deploying. Furthermore, a kid could by a $100 laptop off ebay, find a public hotspot and surf away. Nothing is stopping him.

    Yeah, the federal government should be more vigilant in tracking my teenager. Dude, the *parent* is the responsible one. If you can’t trust your neighbors, don’t let your children go over there.

    If this were true, we could do away with laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and porn to child today. But we have them as tools to help parents.

    How does CP80 fix this? What if my evil neighbor isn’t blocking the “Open” ports? Then what.

    He is responsible for his connection, just as if he served beer to the neighborhood kids. If he has an Open connection, he needs to be sure to secure it.

    There’s already legislation in place to protect children from filth in public places. Check out the Childrens’ Internet Protection Act.

    CIPA states that in order to receive federal funding, a school or library must have measure in place to block or filter pornography. Well, filters can’t block it all, so what is the point of CIPA. Unless they are really enforcing it, in which case only schools and libraries with no Internet connection would meet the standard. Unless CIPA is only concerned with the intent to try and protect children.

    I’d do it if I thought my children needed it. No filter, no amount of legislation, no amount of technical trickery will ever keep determined individuals from finding what they’re after on the Internet.

    That’s true. But we protect minors from making decisions/mistakes before they are mature to truly appreciate the consequences of those actions?

    Make what work? What is the goal of CP80, then? If the goal isn’t about how much porn you can block, then why all this magic about Internet “channels” and stuff? I thought the whole point behind channels was that you can pick and choose and block and open.

    The goal is to offer individuals a choice. That can only be achieve with a combination of technology + legislation + Internet governance.

    The current spam bot problem proves that this simply is not the case. There is a clear expectation of a spam free community, yet the bots and spam continue.

    email Spam and website are very different in nature. Spam could be handled better with an enforce port solution, websites would absolutely be handled.

    So let me get this straight. You pay $20 a month, of your own volition, to get Internet access. You type in a domain name, without any outside coercion, and you are met with porn.

    Sure. And then a dozen other pop ups start filling your screen that you never asked for, and then spyware is deposited on your system that you never asked for.

    And when people hijack well-known names that have nothing to do with pornography and use them to essentially trick people, it is hardly an end user freely choosing to access pornography.

    I have an idea: let the *world* decide what the world wants, rather than a single government headed up by a small committee.

    You have just summed up exactly what CP80 is all about. I couldn’t said it better.

    The fact is, the world at large has no representation on the Internet with regard to its rules and regulations.

    Can I publish whatever content I want on port 80 under the ICPA?

    As long as the content meets a certains standard, yes. If not, you would have thousands of other ports to choose from.

    You could choose to drive on the wrong side of the street today if you wanted to. And if a police officer pulled you over, he wouldn’t be violating your free speech.

    So, people can “choose” whatever they want, but get in trouble with the govermnent if they don’t do it a certain way? That’s classic.

    You can’t sell a bottle of water and claim that it cures cancer; you can’t spread malicious lies about an individual if they aren’t true; and you can’t yell fire in the middle of a pact auditorium.

    None of those forms of speech are protected.

    One thing you’re forgetting is that some users of the Internet are *publishers*. Sure, under CP80 the end user can theoretically just decide what “channels” to listen to, but what about publishers? They have to cross check all their content with some government standard, hoping to evade any complaints that might come their way. That isn’t choice. We have freedom to publish already.

    Yes they would have to check. And no you don’t have freedom to publish–on on an unregulated Internet.

    See the examples above, all of them are not protected forms of speech.

    The Internet isn’t owned by a private party who dislikes profanity. If I’m on private property (like a grocery store), the owner can have me removed.

    If I am a parent and do not give my child the right to view pornography, but a pornographer makes it simple to bring his pornography into my home, do I not have the same rights to remove him?

    Please realize that because the US doesn’t own the Internet, they really have no right to press their agenda on it.

    Fine. Let’s talk world agenda. If the people of the world want Internet pornography tamed, then you are all for it? Because governments all over the world are struggling with the issue.

    Its like me coming over for dinner and dismissing you from the table because I don’t like your social policy ideas.

    No, its more like the US joining a community table that no one owns and saying, we have had enough with unregulated porn, we want to do something about it, here’s what we think should be done. What does everyone else think?

    But don’t expect the police to run a full background check and search the house for “bad” stuff before your kids are allowed to enter. CP80 seems to expect that Uncle Sam will make sure that Bobby’s house is porn free before my son enters. That’s ludicrous, by its own tenets (what if Bobby’s dad is an “Open” ports fan?).

    Not the polices’ job. They would only be there to enforce laws and standards after the fact.

    Should I sue the police because I found out my son slept over at a meth house? You seem to want to task them with making sure it was at least porn free first. It doesn’t make sense.

    No. But you would have an expectation, just as you do today, that if your neighbor kept showing pornography to your son, even after you said don’t do it, even after you forbade your son to do it, that you could finally take action to remedy the situation.

    Frankly, it assumes the parent is irresponsible. It is a parent’s job to know their children’s friends.

    As a child ages into a teen, he tests boundaries. That is what they do. I would just prefer if access to pornography simply was not so easily accessible.

    CP80 will not help the “kids at the neighbors house” problem. No government measure should need to.

    I disagree. People need to be held accountable for what they bring into a community.

    That’s because it is different for everyone! Its not hypocrisy, its diversity of opinion!

    It is diversity. You are right about that. But that doesn’t make it right or good.

    Should we expect more. Of course. Should I try to force my views on my neighbors, no.

    And you wouldn’t have to. You could block the channels, he wouldn’t have to. Everyone is happy.

    I don’t remember saying it was. What I’m saying is that this sort of regulation is *not* the answer.

    What other sort of regulation is there? We are all for Internet governance, but they seem reluctant to take action.

    So what is left?

    Regulation gives too much power to the government, a body that can’t even make content decisions *now*. COPA was struck down by a federal judge yesterday. There’s no way ICPA is going to get anywhere. This kind of regulation is proving not to be the answer.

    So why is it okay for pornography to exist on the Internet in a very open, unobstructed manner. But not in Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. Sure, there areas where they have been zoned. But if you agree with the COPA hearing, a person should be able to put a hardcore picture on a billboard next to a elementary school.

    I mean if diversity good and parents can just tell their kids to close their eyes, then why not?

  45. John David Anderson
    March 23, 2007 at 4:19 pm #

    And to the extent that spam linked to and pulled pornographic content, that content would need to be served over a designated adult port so that it could be easily blocked.

    That is, if everyone is scared enough by ICPA and friends, and if everyone’s Internet traffic is easily tracked. Globally.

    Otherwise, CP80’s port-based filtering is worthless. Even then, we’ll still need content-based filtering because the web is very live in places, and we’ll want to catch any would be offenders before they harm us.

    Makes no sense, Matthew.

    Even if filters were in every home, not everyone is proficient at deploying. Furthermore, a kid could by a $100 laptop off ebay, find a public hotspot and surf away. Nothing is stopping him.

    What’s your point then? Filters are subverted, parenting isn’t foolproof…

    Should we shove our morals down other people’s throats, policing them step-by-step, so they do the good things we want them to?

    What are you getting at? You’re never going to find the bulletproof system you’re after, that is, unless you reject society as a whole and live on an island or something.

    If this were true, we could do away with laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and porn to child today. But we have them as tools to help parents.

    If what were true? My original point (nice try on the argument shift) was about parents and neighbors. I don’t know why you continue to bring up drugs and guns.

    He is responsible for his connection, just as if he served beer to the neighborhood kids. If he has an Open connection, he needs to be sure to secure it.

    You’ve shifted the argument again. We were talking about a bulletproof solution. You suggested that children will always be able to find content at the neighbors.

    My reply to that is that CP80 is no more bulletproof, because my neighbors aren’t forced to choose to block “Open” ports.

    CIPA states that in order to receive federal funding, a school or library must have measure in place to block or filter pornography. Well, filters can’t block it all, so what is the point of CIPA. Unless they are really enforcing it, in which case only schools and libraries with no Internet connection would meet the standard. Unless CIPA is only concerned with the intent to try and protect children.

    Well, CP80 can’t block it all, so what’s the point of CP80? Here’s some news for you, Matthew: nothing will block it all. Nothing.

    Don’t tell me the threat of enforcement is the same as blocking, because it isn’t.

    My original point is that CIPA *can* be used to keep filth out of public places. That point still stands.

    email Spam and website are very different in nature. Spam could be handled better with an enforce port solution, websites would absolutely be handled.

    Please explain *how* it is “very” different.

    Sure. And then a dozen other pop ups start filling your screen that you never asked for, and then spyware is deposited on your system that you never asked for.

    And when people hijack well-known names that have nothing to do with pornography and use them to essentially trick people, it is hardly an end user freely choosing to access pornography.

    I still don’t understand how you’ve been forced to access the Internet.

    You have just summed up exactly what CP80 is all about. I couldn’t said it better.

    I *did* say single government and small committee.

    The fact is, the world at large has no representation on the Internet with regard to its rules and regulations.

    Yeah so let’s take the initiative as Americans to define how the Internet works for people worldwide. That sounds fair.

    As long as the content meets a certains standard, yes. If not, you would have thousands of other ports to choose from.

    You could choose to drive on the wrong side of the street today if you wanted to. And if a police officer pulled you over, he wouldn’t be violating your free speech.

    Argument shift! Here’s your original question: “If ports and enforcement were put in place, would that prevent you from writing your own protocol and using available ports.” I replied, asking if publishing anything I want is possible under CP80.

    So, your answer is that “as long as I meet a certain standard”, nothing would “prevent me from writing my own protocol”?

    That seems like a contradiction.

    If I am a parent and do not give my child the right to view pornography, but a pornographer makes it simple to bring his pornography into my home, do I not have the same rights to remove him?

    How does he bring it in your home without your permission, Matthew? How?

    Does he pay your bill and dig the trenches to bring in the cable line? Is that something that your children can easily do in your home? Last time I checked, children can’t buy phone lines or cable for my house.

    Whatever. This defeatist attitude is no excuse for a profound lack of parenting.

    Fine. Let’s talk world agenda. If the people of the world want Internet pornography tamed, then you are all for it? Because governments all over the world are struggling with the issue.

    Yep, I’m for it.

    No, its more like the US joining a community table that no one owns and saying, we have had enough with unregulated porn, we want to do something about it, here’s what we think should be done. What does everyone else think?

    So what if they think its a bad idea? How is that voice accounted for in the *US* legislation CP80 is trying to push?

    Not the polices’ job. They would only be there to enforce laws and standards after the fact.

    Then why did you imply that its the government’s job to keep my children from going to the neighbors to get porn? Why did you bring it up?

    No. But you would have an expectation, just as you do today, that if your neighbor kept showing pornography to your son, even after you said don’t do it, even after you forbade your son to do it, that you could finally take action to remedy the situation.

    LOL

    Dear officer, I can’t control my son. He keeps going over to billy’s to see bad things. Can you come and do my job for me? We pay good money in taxes for this sort of stuff, and I just can’t seem to manage to control my own children.

    Dear goodness, please tell me you’re joking.

    I disagree. People need to be held accountable for what they bring into a community.

    My original thought was talking about blocking ability. Preemptively. Please read above. I’m not talking about enforcement.

    Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking.

    It is diversity. You are right about that. But that doesn’t make it right or good.

    In YOUR view!! Can’t you understand that everyone else thinks the same thing?! How is such a measure fair if it doesn’t take into account everyone’s viewpoint of good?

    And you wouldn’t have to. You could block the channels, he wouldn’t have to. Everyone is happy.

    I see you’ve forgot my comment about *publishing* on the Internet as opposed to viewing. Take a few moments to review.

    What other sort of regulation is there? We are all for Internet governance, but they seem reluctant to take action.

    So what is left?

    Holy cow, you’re right. We’re all out of options. Guess we better go ahead with this legislation because it seems to be the best thing that has come along thus far.

    False dilemmas are also a common fallacy.

    So why is it okay for pornography to exist on the Internet in a very open, unobstructed manner. But not in Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. Sure, there areas where they have been zoned. But if you agree with the COPA hearing, a person should be able to put a hardcore picture on a billboard next to a elementary school.

    No idea what the point is here. I never said I agreed with the COPA ruling, and I don’t think the judge who made the ruling would agree with your particular example, either.

    I mean if diversity good and parents can just tell their kids to close their eyes, then why not?

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here either.

  46. Matthew
    March 23, 2007 at 5:00 pm #

    What’s your point then? Filters are subverted, parenting isn’t foolproof…

    That is my point. And reasonable government regulation helps parents do a better job.

    Should we shove our morals down other people’s throats, policing them step-by-step, so they do the good things we want them to?

    Should we allow people to rape, steal and murder?

    What are you getting at? You’re never going to find the bulletproof system you’re after, that is, unless you reject society as a whole and live on an island or something.

    Just want to create tools that work.

    If what were true? My original point (nice try on the argument shift) was about parents and neighbors. I don’t know why you continue to bring up drugs and guns.

    You believe that a diversity of morality is good. Therefore, I posed the question if we as a world are willing to tolerate children accessing porn on the Internet, why not tolerate them playing with guns, beer and smokes.

    You’ve shifted the argument again. We were talking about a bulletproof solution. You suggested that children will always be able to find content at the neighbors.

    You keep thinking about just technology. The solution is broader than just that. It has to be.

    My original point is that CIPA *can* be used to keep filth out of public places. That point still stands.

    No it can’t. It is totally ineffective because filters are.

    I still don’t understand how you’ve been forced to access the Internet.

    If your kid order a pizza and when he opened the door for the delivery man, the man at the door enter your home and started posting porn all over your walls. That is about the equivalent to a hijacked domain and porn pop ups.

    I *did* say single government and small committee.

    CP80 is a global solution. They are working with a number of governments to try to get a dialougue started. The US is just a starting point.

    Yeah so let’s take the initiative as Americans to define how the Internet works for people worldwide. That sounds fair.

    Just a starting point. Have to start somewhere.

    Argument shift! Here’s your original question: “If ports and enforcement were put in place, would that prevent you from writing your own protocol and using available ports.” I replied, asking if publishing anything I want is possible under CP80.

    The point is, you can always do whatever you want whenever you want. Societies create rules to engender order.

    The fact is, you cannot do whatever you want. You don’t even have the right to say whatever you want.

    The First Amendment only protects certain forms of speech. Other forms are unprotected.

    So, your answer is that “as long as I meet a certain standard”, nothing would “prevent me from writing my own protocol”?

    Not at all. As long as adult content used the designated ports for transmission, you can do whatever you want.

    How does he bring it in your home without your permission, Matthew? How?

    What’s the difference between a minor visiting a porn site or going to the local video store and renting a porn video and bringing it home to watch.

    To me there is no difference.

    Does he pay your bill and dig the trenches to bring in the cable line? Is that something that your children can easily do in your home? Last time I checked, children can’t buy phone lines or cable for my house.

    How about a WiFi enabled laptop and a hijacked wireless network.

    Whatever. This defeatist attitude is no excuse for a profound lack of parenting.

    Parents want to be better parents. They want better tools.

    Fine. Let’s talk world agenda. If the people of the world want Internet pornography tamed, then you are all for it? Because governments all over the world are struggling with the issue.

    Yep, I’m for it.

    Glad to see we agree on that. That is what we are working towards.

    No, its more like the US joining a community table that no one owns and saying, we have had enough with unregulated porn, we want to do something about it, here’s what we think should be done. What does everyone else think?

    So what if they think its a bad idea? How is that voice accounted for in the *US* legislation CP80 is trying to push?

    They can absolutely reject it, accept it or they could impose an even more strict solution. But it is the world’s decision to make.

    Then why did you imply that its the government’s job to keep my children from going to the neighbors to get porn? Why did you bring it up?

    Not the police job to prevent you from doing anything. It is their job to enforce laws that have been violated.

    Dear officer, I can’t control my son. He keeps going over to billy’s to see bad things. Can you come and do my job for me? We pay good money in taxes for this sort of stuff, and I just can’t seem to manage to control my own children.

    Dear goodness, please tell me you’re joking.

    Perhaps you have the best children in the world. Perhaps your marriage is the most stable in the world. Perhaps they are not teens yet. I don’t know.

    But there are plenty of people who have difficult children, bad family lives or simply don’t care. The solution helps them and holds them accountable.

    Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking. Enforcing isn’t blocking.

    Not sure what you are talking about here.

    In YOUR view!! Can’t you understand that everyone else thinks the same thing?! How is such a measure fair if it doesn’t take into account everyone’s viewpoint of good?

    If you believe in diverse morality within a community so much, you wouldn’t have a problem with someone putting an enourmous billboard of hardcore sex across the street right in front of your house.

    Do you honestly believe that that celebrates diversity. That it is healthy and desirable?

    I think there is a time and place for almost everything in live. The Internet does not provide for any meaningful way to organize content.

    I see you’ve forgot my comment about *publishing* on the Internet as opposed to viewing. Take a few moments to review.

    You could still publish “legal” content and make it available to anyone who wanted to access it. But people who don’t want to access it now have a tool to keep it out of their homes.

    Holy cow, you’re right. We’re all out of options. Guess we better go ahead with this legislation because it seems to be the best thing that has come along thus far.

    Waiting for a better suggestion… waiting.

  47. John David Anderson
    March 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm #

    Seems rather circular at this point. You can’t seem to resolve my concerns, so you keep on stating the same answers. Let me recap.

    One thing I don’t understand is how you keep on saying that filters are ineffective, while at the same time saying that CP80 helps people filter. The reason I say enforcement is different than blocking is because you seem to equate the two.

    When I say that no filter can block everything you reply saying that governance is the answer. The problem is that it addresses the wrong problem. Governance only helps *after* the problem, while blocking is meant to happen before.

    Because CP80 relies on filters, less effective port-based filters, to *block*, CP80 is not going to be an effective prevention measure. All it takes is a single IM message with a lewd context running over a given port. Because port-based filtering is content-ignorant, accidents are bound to happen.

    Now, if you say that the enforcement of Internet channels is going to lessen the number of sites that need to be filtered from the “community ports”, then I have an additional concern.

    The larger, established, more easily identified sites are going to form the majority of sites that move their content to another port. The problem with this is:

    1 – well known sites are already being blocked by filters, so I don’t believe CP80 is really helping in this respect.
    2 – less known or migratory sites will not be likely to be move unless tracked down.

    Basically, we already are filtering and blocking well-known trackable sites. Nothing CP80 provides helps the current situation.

    In summary, CP80 is just as good (and arguably worse) as current filters for *preemptive* blocking. Most people will still need these filters even on “community” ports just in case anyway, because CP80 doesn’t aim to provide any content-based filtering.

    Secondly, CP80 is just as good (or worse) at enforcement. People that are easily tracked will be held accountable for exposing minors to indecent materials – much like they are now via other medium (possibly – I’m not even sure that *this* happens often). Unless CP80 provides some plan to track down migratory or botnet-created email and web porn, then it really isn’t any better than what we have now.

    Aside from my own Free Speech and privacy convictions, I don’t think I can justify spending a significant amount of time and money on something that won’t end up doing more for us.

  48. Matthew
    March 27, 2007 at 11:11 am #

    Seems rather circular at this point. You can’t seem to resolve my concerns, so you keep on stating the same answers. Let me recap.

    I believe I have answered your questions. You just don’t want to accept them.

    One thing I don’t understand is how you keep on saying that filters are ineffective, while at the same time saying that CP80 helps people filter.

    Filters are a technology solution without any element of legislation and enforcement, and so are currently completely ineffective.

    The CP80 solution combines technology with legislation and enforcement and create a better solution. You keep missing the legislative and enforcement element.

    The reason I say enforcement is different than blocking is because you seem to equate the two.

    I equate the two because in order for an individual to truly have control over his environment and make choices for his family (or her family), there needs to be an element of legislation and enforcement.

    When I say that no filter can block everything you reply saying that governance is the answer. The problem is that it addresses the wrong problem. Governance only helps *after* the problem, while blocking is meant to happen before.

    Blocking only happens before when an individual is seeking out the problem. But even then you can still stumble upon it. If an individual is seeking it out, blocking won’t do anything.

    Governance actually happens before blocking, because eventually, people will get the message and you will have fewer incidents of porn being pushed/accessible to people who don’t want it.

    Because CP80 relies on filters, less effective port-based filters, to *block*, CP80 is not going to be an effective prevention measure.

    In you opinion, less effective. For the average person, more effective.

    All it takes is a single IM message with a lewd context running over a given port. Because port-based filtering is content-ignorant, accidents are bound to happen.

    Sure, but when caught for violating the channel, the person is going to face stiff fines.

    Now, if you say that the enforcement of Internet channels is going to lessen the number of sites that need to be filtered from the “community ports”, then I have an additional concern.

    The larger, established, more easily identified sites are going to form the majority of sites that move their content to another port. The problem with this is:

    1 – well known sites are already being blocked by filters, so I don’t believe CP80 is really helping in this respect.
    2 – less known or migratory sites will not be likely to be move unless tracked down.

    1). well known sites are only being blocked by filters to the extent that someone who is not seeking them out will catch accidental intrusions. If a kid wants to access it, he can just go next door and there is no accountability. Therefore, the filter is almost worthless.

    2). Less known or migratory sites that want to make $$$ will have problems bouncing around to new domains all the time and maintaining traffic. If they really want to be profitable, they will have to put a stake in the ground and play by the rules.

    But there will always be wackos. And even some of those will be trackable. Either way, when an ISP discovers that porn is on the wrong channel, he can shut it down.

    Basically, we already are filtering and blocking well-known trackable sites. Nothing CP80 provides helps the current situation.

    Basically, filtering is ineffective because there is no accountability or regulation on the Internet. CP80 is spotlighting that fact and offering a solution that brings a level of accountability and responsibility that exist everywhere else in the civilized world. There is no reason why the Internet should be any different.

    In summary, CP80 is just as good (and arguably worse) as current filters for *preemptive* blocking. Most people will still need these filters even on “community” ports just in case anyway, because CP80 doesn’t aim to provide any content-based filtering.

    Secondly, CP80 is just as good (or worse) at enforcement. People that are easily tracked will be held accountable for exposing minors to indecent materials – much like they are now via other medium (possibly – I’m not even sure that *this* happens often). Unless CP80 provides some plan to track down migratory or botnet-created email and web porn, then it really isn’t any better than what we have now.

    Aside from my own Free Speech and privacy convictions, I don’t think I can justify spending a significant amount of time and money on something that won’t end up doing more for us.

  49. John David Anderson
    March 27, 2007 at 12:03 pm #

    I believe I have answered your questions. You just don’t want to accept them.

    Right. :)

    Filters are a technology solution without any element of legislation and enforcement, and so are currently completely ineffective.

    The CP80 solution combines technology with legislation and enforcement and create a better solution. You keep missing the legislative and enforcement element.

    You’re not listening.

    Filters and blocking are meant to PREVENT BEFORE. No amount of legislation will help PREVENTIVE measures, because legislation is an *after-the-fact* measure.

    Legislation and enforcement are meant to PUNISH AFTER, not PREVENT. Enforcing legislation after someone has already viewed something bad is NOT a PREVENTIVE measure.

    You cannot equate the two sides of this issue, yet you continue to confuse them.

    I equate the two because in order for an individual to truly have control over his environment and make choices for his family (or her family), there needs to be an element of legislation and enforcement.

    There also needs to be a PREVENTIVE measure. Legislation cannot, and is not a preventive measure. You cannot equate it with blocking or filtering.

    Blocking only happens before when an individual is seeking out the problem. But even then you can still stumble upon it. If an individual is seeking it out, blocking won’t do anything.

    Right, no blocking is perfect. Let’s move on.

    Governance actually happens before blocking, because eventually, people will get the message and you will have fewer incidents of porn being pushed/accessible to people who don’t want it.

    I knew you’d say this – did you read my argument below about how this isn’t the case?

    In you opinion, less effective. For the average person, more effective.

    It isn’t opinion, its based on fact. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I fail to see how a port based filter is more effective than a content filter.

    If I am in a chat room, on a “community port” and someone enters and starts spewing profanity, a port based filter will NOT even attempt to stop the bad words, while a content based filter can.

    Port based filters are thus less effective. If you plan to retort, please provide details rather than just nay-saying.

    Sure, but when caught for violating the channel, the person is going to face stiff fines.

    *sigh*

    Blocking and filtering are PREVENTIVE. Legislation does not preventively shield people from exposure!!

    1). well known sites are only being blocked by filters to the extent that someone who is not seeking them out will catch accidental intrusions. If a kid wants to access it, he can just go next door and there is no accountability. Therefore, the filter is almost worthless.

    I’m not talking about enforcement!! I’m talking about blocking!! I’m talking about a way to stop if from getting into my house! Why do you keep thinking that I’m talking about enforcing other people? I refuse to allow you to shift the discussion to the neighbor problem in order to avoid the fundamental flaw I’m discussing in CP80.

    CP80 can’t PREVENT (I didn’t say enforce, I said prevent) my children from seeing porn at the neighbors anyway. Do you pretend to say that I can PREVENT, before any legislation is enforced?

    The point is that since well-known sites are already being filtered, CP80 doesn’t do me any additional good, because you can only “enforce” well known people as well.

    2). Less known or migratory sites that want to make $$$ will have problems bouncing around to new domains all the time and maintaining traffic. If they really want to be profitable, they will have to put a stake in the ground and play by the rules.

    But there will always be wackos. And even some of those will be trackable. Either way, when an ISP discovers that porn is on the wrong channel, he can shut it down.

    … AFTER the fact. After. Not before my kid sees it. Only after a lengthy, seemingly impossible (in many cases) tracking down process, and even then after a lengthy lawsuit. That’s *if* you can find the person, and the lawsuit only happens if they’re in the US.

    What you’re saying doesn’t PREVENTIVELY keep things out.

    Basically, filtering is ineffective because there is no accountability or regulation on the Internet. CP80 is spotlighting that fact and offering a solution that brings a level of accountability and responsibility that exist everywhere else in the civilized world. There is no reason why the Internet should be any different.

    I think you entirely missed the point. I’ll try to make it as simple as possible.

    1. You think CP80’s enforcement is key to making things work.
    2. You have to know where someone is in order to enforce something on them. Even then, they have to be in US jurisdiction.
    3. Current filters work on the basis of knowing where people are.

    Conclusion: because CP80’s enforcement premises rely on the same as current filtering success premises, CP80 is no better than what we have now. At peak performance, its as good as we have now, only that commercial entities are footing the tracking bill rather than the government.

    Please stop repeating old rhetoric and address these details.

  50. Matthew
    March 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm #

    You’re not listening.

    Filters and blocking are meant to PREVENT BEFORE. No amount of legislation will help PREVENTIVE measures, because legislation is an *after-the-fact* measure.

    Legislation and enforcement are meant to PUNISH AFTER, not PREVENT. Enforcing legislation after someone has already viewed something bad is NOT a PREVENTIVE measure.

    If a publisher decides NOT to publish some adult content on the Community ports because he knows he will be fined. Is that not preventative.

    Of course it is.

    You cannot equate the two sides of this issue, yet you continue to confuse them.

    Nope. You are just trying to limit the discussion to just technology.

    There also needs to be a PREVENTIVE measure. Legislation cannot, and is not a preventive measure. You cannot equate it with blocking or filtering.

    Once again, if someone decides NOT to do something because they realize it is against the law and do not want to be punished accordingly, THAT is a PREVENTIVE measure.

    It isn’t opinion, its based on fact. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I fail to see how a port based filter is more effective than a content filter.

    Easy. Even if we assumed that filtering were just as effective as using a port solution, from purely a technological point of view. Once the CP80 solution were deployed, there would be an added level of regulated deterance, a broader acceptance of a solution–because its free and only would require a phone call to deploy, and you could still split hairs using a filter.

    It would be a better solution.

    If I am in a chat room, on a “community port” and someone enters and starts spewing profanity, a port based filter will NOT even attempt to stop the bad words, while a content based filter can.

    Nope. Because if you are the owner of said chat room on the community port, you had better know who those people are so that they can be held accountable for their comments. If they want to spew profanity or you want a more adult chat room, host it on the Open ports.

    Port based filters are thus less effective. If you plan to retort, please provide details rather than just nay-saying.

    We are obviously never going to see eye to eye on this. I say tomato you say tomato.

    I believe that the Internet should be treated like any community that exists on earth and there is no reason why it shouldn’t. Technology and good intentions alone will not bring a level of responsibility to the Net that every person should expect.

    Let the world decide.

    Blocking and filtering are PREVENTIVE. Legislation does not preventively shield people from exposure!!

    Sigh… see the comments above.

    Furthermore, if that were true, we wouldn’t need laws making murder illegal. We would only need to all walk around with body armor. Because that would be enough. And if someone was shot and killed, oh well, they should have purchased better body armor.

    I’m not talking about enforcement!! I’m talking about blocking!! I’m talking about a way to stop if from getting into my house!

    You can’t stop it. Even if you you through the computer in your home away, you couldn’t stop it with the way the Internet is today.

    It needs to evolve so you have that choice.

    Why do you keep thinking that I’m talking about enforcing other people? I refuse to allow you to shift the discussion to the neighbor problem in order to avoid the fundamental flaw I’m discussing in CP80.

    You are shifting the argument. CP80 is about creating a social community with mutual respect.

    You are talking about a man living on an island.

    We live in communities. The solution, like all laws that support productive civilizations, should support accountability to a community.

    That’s CP80.

    CP80 can’t PREVENT (I didn’t say enforce, I said prevent) my children from seeing porn at the neighbors anyway. Do you pretend to say that I can PREVENT, before any legislation is enforced?

    Yes and no. When people realize that hey are accountable for having an open Internet connection in their home, and that, just like serving beer to neighborhood kids is illegal, they could be held accountable to other parents and the community, they will start to secure their Internet connections.

    And when that happens, the chance of accessing porn at a neighbor’s house will decline.

    The point is that since well-known sites are already being filtered, CP80 doesn’t do me any additional good, because you can only “enforce” well known people as well.

    The point is that many people don’t deploy filters because they don’t work, they don’t solve the problem for the community. CP80 would.

    … AFTER the fact. After. Not before my kid sees it. Only after a lengthy, seemingly impossible (in many cases) tracking down process, and even then after a lengthy lawsuit. That’s *if* you can find the person, and the lawsuit only happens if they’re in the US.

    Filters have an element of AFTER the fact as well. They cannot block everything. But with your solution, there is no accountability. There is nothing you can do.

    With CP80 people can be held accountable for those after the fact exposures.

    What you’re saying doesn’t PREVENTIVELY keep things out.

    See examples of above of laws being more preventative than filters.

    1. You think CP80’s enforcement is key to making things work.
    2. You have to know where someone is in order to enforce something on them. Even then, they have to be in US jurisdiction.
    3. Current filters work on the basis of knowing where people are.

    1. Yes
    2. No–CP80 is looking at laws in every country, not just the US. And leveraing Internet governance as well.
    3, Filters don’t.

    Conclusion: because CP80’s enforcement premises rely on the same as current filtering success premises, CP80 is no better than what we have now. At peak performance, its as good as we have now, only that commercial entities are footing the tracking bill rather than the government.

    CP80 would easily be better than filtering, because with it you would still be able to use a filter to split hairs.

    With filtering, you only have filtering, which is flawed and unsuccessful.

    WIth CP80 you have Internet Governance + Laws + ports + filters.

    Way Better.

    Please stop repeating old rhetoric and address these details.

    That goes double for me.

  51. John David Anderson
    March 27, 2007 at 2:11 pm #

    If a publisher decides NOT to publish some adult content on the Community ports because he knows he will be fined. Is that not preventative.

    Of course it is.

    It isn’t, and you’re ignoring my argument as to *why* it isn’t.

    Enforcing isn’t going to work any better than current filtering solutions because you can’t track down people any better than the filters can.

    Please outline how CP80’s tracking down mechanism is somehow better than what we’ve already got, and I’ll believe you.

    Nope. You are just trying to limit the discussion to just technology.

    Nothing I’ve referenced is technology specific. I’m talking about preventive versus after the fact.

    Once again, if someone decides NOT to do something because they realize it is against the law and do not want to be punished accordingly, THAT is a PREVENTIVE measure.

    Still ignoring my point about tracking?

    Easy. Even if we assumed that filtering were just as effective as using a port solution, from purely a technological point of view. Once the CP80 solution were deployed, there would be an added level of regulated deterance, a broader acceptance of a solution–because its free and only would require a phone call to deploy, and you could still split hairs using a filter.

    It would be a better solution.

    This “added level of deterrence” is *only* available if you can demonstrate an ability to track people down that is better than what we have today.

    And you haven’t done that yet, you keep ignoring that point.

    Nope. Because if you are the owner of said chat room on the community port, you had better know who those people are so that they can be held accountable for their comments. If they want to spew profanity or you want a more adult chat room, host it on the Open ports.

    I think I’m going to start typing “Preventive” in large, red letters, because you seem to equate enforcing (which is after the fact) with prevention. It is not, and cannot be the same. Mr. Chatroom owner can only act AFTER the profanity has entered the room. Matthew, please, I’m talking about *preventive* measures, and CP80 cannot do it.

    No port based filter will stop that profanity BEFORE it hits my screen. Many commonly available content filters WILL.

    Besides, you still haven’t demonstrated how Mr. Chatroom owner has better tools to track people down.

    We are obviously never going to see eye to eye on this. I say tomato you say tomato.

    I believe that the Internet should be treated like any community that exists on earth and there is no reason why it shouldn’t. Technology and good intentions alone will not bring a level of responsibility to the Net that every person should expect.

    Let the world decide.

    Port based filtering + legislation is only powerful as an after-the-fact measure and has NO preventive value, unless you con demonstrate how CP80 empowers tracking. Your insistence on ignoring that fact exposes this flaw.

    Let the world decide… on US legislation? That’s laughable.

    Sigh… see the comments above.

    Furthermore, if that were true, we wouldn’t need laws making murder illegal. We would only need to all walk around with body armor. Because that would be enough. And if someone was shot and killed, oh well, they should have purchased better body armor.

    LOL

    You think homicide is under control in the United States? That’s awesome. Oh, and I’m sure the pending lawsuit, which may take years, is *extremely* satisfying for the grieving family.

    Right. Uncle Sam should have been doing a better job scaring people from murdering. Its the government’s fault.

    So if CP80 ends up being enacted, do you plan to give your children unfiltered Internet access? Do you plan to let them visit people that don’t share your views about pornography?

    You can’t stop it. Even if you you through the computer in your home away, you couldn’t stop it with the way the Internet is today.

    It needs to evolve so you have that choice.

    I can so. It will be no better with your ex post facto “blocking” (that makes no sense at all).

    You are shifting the argument. CP80 is about creating a social community with mutual respect.

    You are talking about a man living on an island.

    We live in communities. The solution, like all laws that support productive civilizations, should support accountability to a community.

    That’s CP80.

    I’m shifting the argument? Where did this social community topic come from?

    By the way, mutual respect does not come from police enforcement. If Officer friendly tells Jim not to murder Bob, there isn’t necessarily respect.

    CP80 is not about community. It is about letting the *government*, the US government, a small group in the US government, enforce their values on the *world*.

    Your idea of “community” is laughable, and I think your use of the term on CP80 is misleading.

    You can’t police people into a community, Matthew.

    Yes and no. When people realize that hey are accountable for having an open Internet connection in their home, and that, just like serving beer to neighborhood kids is illegal, they could be held accountable to other parents and the community, they will start to secure their Internet connections.

    And when that happens, the chance of accessing porn at a neighbor’s house will decline.

    So I can show porn to the neighbor kids today and not get in trouble. Interesting argument you’ve got there.

    Enforcement is not, and cannot be preventive, unless you somehow have a way to track, with extraordinary precision, evil-doers.

    Even then, you’re only cleaning up the mess after it’s happened. Good luck with that parenting approach.

    Filters have an element of AFTER the fact as well. They cannot block everything. But with your solution, there is no accountability. There is nothing you can do.

    The reason I can’t go after someone is because of *tracking*, not current legislation.

    CP80 does not aid in tracking.

    1. Yes
    2. No–CP80 is looking at laws in every country, not just the US. And leveraing Internet governance as well.
    3, Filters don’t.

    2. “looking”? What does that mean? And you’re going to “leverage” Internet governance? No idea what you’re talking about.

    3. Please provide at least some details, rather than just nay-saying again.

    CP80 would easily be better than filtering, because with it you would still be able to use a filter to split hairs.

    With filtering, you only have filtering, which is flawed and unsuccessful.

    WIth CP80 you have Internet Governance + Laws + ports + filters.

    Way Better.

    Splitting hairs is exactly what I want to do. With CP80, you close the front door and open the back, hoping to sue a thief after he’s done his damage. At least with filters I can already try to judge who’s coming in, and I already have the power to cause trouble for people I can already track down.

    Its funny. CP80 will actually make it easier for people to get in – given that its all people rely on. All it takes is some migratory program that exposes “bad” content on “good” ports. If you’re only relying on “enforcing” to help you, you’ve got no help.

    It can’t do a good job without current means (i.e., I’m going to need a filter anyway), and the current means are just as good at what CP80 is after, without all the government entanglement.

    Please stop repeating old rhetoric and address these details.

    That goes double for me.

    Triple for you now.

  52. Matthew
    March 27, 2007 at 3:06 pm #

    It isn’t, and you’re ignoring my argument as to *why* it isn’t.

    Over 6,000 years of rule by law says it is.

    Enforcing isn’t going to work any better than current filtering solutions because you can’t track down people any better than the filters can.

    People can be tracked down. If they are attempting to make money by serving up porn, they can be found.

    If they are simply putting up a funny picture and running. That will be harder to accomplish–but when there is no money in it, why do it?

    People will behave.

    Please outline how CP80’s tracking down mechanism is somehow better than what we’ve already got, and I’ll believe you.

    On the Web, it is easier. Of course, other applications can obscure someone’s identity, but once it is prosecutable to serve porn to minors, the police will start sting operations to find those violators.

    Nothing I’ve referenced is technology specific. I’m talking about preventive versus after the fact.

    You’re the one that keep comparing filtering to port blocking, when the CP80 solution is a combination of port blocking, laws and Internt governance. It is a package deal.

    Once again, if someone decides NOT to do something because they realize it is against the law and do not want to be punished accordingly, THAT is a PREVENTIVE measure.

    Still ignoring my point about tracking?

    Asked and answered. But you seem to be avoiding the “law is a preventative measure” question.

    And you haven’t done that yet, you keep ignoring that point.

    Give me a specific example, and I will give you some situations that could occur.

    I think I’m going to start typing “Preventive” in large, red letters, because you seem to equate enforcing (which is after the fact) with prevention. It is not, and cannot be the same. Mr. Chatroom owner can only act AFTER the profanity has entered the room. Matthew, please, I’m talking about *preventive* measures, and CP80 cannot do it.

    NO. If Mr. Chatroom decides to move his site to the Open ports rather than risk fines THAT is PREVENTATIVE. If Mr Chatroom requires a credit card to register on his Community chat room, that is also Preventative.

    After those measures are bypassed, then a filter would come into play. So the CP80 soltuion is MORE preventative or a MORE EARLY level of prevention than filtering.

    No port based filter will stop that profanity BEFORE it hits my screen. Many commonly available content filters WILL.

    This is an example of you trying to strip the enforcement element–which is preventative–out of the CP80 solution. You have to discuss the solution as a whole, not parts.

    The CP80 solution will stop profanity BEFORE it hits your screen.

    Besides, you still haven’t demonstrated how Mr. Chatroom owner has better tools to track people down.

    If he has a open forum on the community site, he is responsible for it and everyone on it. Use a credit card.

    Let the world decide… on US legislation? That’s laughable.

    The US can decide on US legislation. Every country should decide for themselves how they are going to regulate the Internet where it physically enters and exists in their geo-political boundary.

    Furthermore, if that were true, we wouldn’t need laws making murder illegal. We would only need to all walk around with body armor. Because that would be enough. And if someone was shot and killed, oh well, they should have purchased better body armor.

    LOL

    You think homicide is under control in the United States? That’s awesome. Oh, and I’m sure the pending lawsuit, which may take years, is *extremely* satisfying for the grieving family.

    Not sure what you are saying here. Do you think that if we didn’t punish murder there would be even less. You think the law isn’t a deterent.

    Now that is laughable.

    Right. Uncle Sam should have been doing a better job scaring people from murdering. Its the government’s fault.

    Like I said, go live in Somalia if you want to see what true lawlessness is. Its easy for you to poke fun at Uncle Sam when you benefit from the law that protects you.

    So if CP80 ends up being enacted, do you plan to give your

    children unfiltered Internet access? Do you plan to let them visit people that don’t share your views about pornography?

    That isn’t what is important. What is important is that I can now choose to do so and have better tools to enforce my decision for my children.

    My family. My choice.

    You can’t stop it. Even if you you through the computer in your home away, you couldn’t stop it with the way the Internet is today.

    Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean we should not try our best to accomplish it. Accepting less simply because its difficult is the a downward slide into a very, very dark place.

    I’m shifting the argument? Where did this social community topic come from?

    From the very beginning. If you haven’t been discussing CP80 as a community solution, you are missing the whole point.

    You keep wanting to make the Internet a table for one. I keep saying it is a community and should adhere to community standards and CP80 is a step in that direction.

    By the way, mutual respect does not come from police enforcement. If Officer friendly tells Jim not to murder Bob, there isn’t necessarily respect.

    Nope. But it is a deterent. And unfortunately, there are people in the world that would just as soon harm you as look at you. All the good wishing and intentions of self-policing in the world won’t stop them from taking advantage of you.

    The US has laws that punish these types of individuals. You seem to think they are wasting paper. But those laws are what make America a civil place to live. Places without laws are chaotic and dangerous.

    CP80 is not about community. It is about letting the *government*, the US government, a small group in the US government, enforce their values on the *world*.

    Have you read the CP80 solution at all? The US cannot govern the Internet, it only governs it where it exists on US soil.

    However, the world does have the right to follow US’s lead, implement the same “Harmful to Minor”/obscentity/pornography regulations that exist in their country on the Internet.

    Your idea of “community” is laughable, and I think your use of the term on CP80 is misleading.

    You have no idea of what makes up a community. And your use of the term CP80 is misleading.

    You can’t police people into a community, Matthew.

    US: Laws and enforcement
    Somalia: Warlords and tyranny

    Which community would you rather live in?

    So I can show porn to the neighbor kids today and not get in trouble. Interesting argument you’ve got there.

    Not in my neighborhood–nor many neighborhoods in the US. You would find yourself arrested for pandering and harmful to minors, fined and possible jailed.

    Enforcement is not, and cannot be preventive, unless you somehow have a way to track, with extraordinary precision, evil-doers.

    Even then, you’re only cleaning up the mess after it’s happened. Good luck with that parenting approach.

    Rules and regulations are preventative.

    The reason I can’t go after someone is because of *tracking*, not current legislation.

    No, its because of current legislation. The Supreme Court cannot define what a community is with regard to the Internet, ergo no one’s community standard applies. Therefore, if you didn’t want your child to see the porn that bypassed your filter there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about. Regardless of how hard or soft the porn is, whether or not the same piece of porn has already been prosecuted successfully elsewhere, regardless of whether the publisher lives inside or outside of the US.

    2. “looking”? What does that mean? And you’re going to “leverage” Internet governance? No idea what you’re talking about.

    Countries are looking for a solution, and one of the solutions they are looking at is CP80. Internet governance is the ability of a governing body (i.e. ICANN or the RIRs) to pull domain names and IP Address for people who abuse policy. It is also the ability for individuals to manage the IP Adresses they access.

    3. Please provide at least some details, rather than just nay-saying again.

    How does a filter know where someone is? They only know white or black lists, or identified naughty words or skin tones, or any combination of the all of it. They do not attempt to hold the publisher responsible.

    Splitting hairs is exactly what I want to do. With CP80, you close the front door and open the back, hoping to sue a thief after he’s done his damage. At least with filters I can already try to judge who’s coming in, and I already have the power to cause trouble for people I can already track down.

    You can judge who is coming in most of the time. And when a filter misses a thief or two who rob your house, you have no recourse.

    Its funny. CP80 will actually make it easier for people to get in – given that its all people rely on. All it takes is some migratory program that exposes “bad” content on “good” ports. If you’re only relying on “enforcing” to help you, you’ve got no help.

    In your bizarro world, people have nothing better to do than spend time making sure people have access to free porn.

    It can’t do a good job without current means (i.e., I’m going to need a filter anyway), and the current means are just as good at what CP80 is after, without all the government entanglement.

    Filtering doesn’t work. And it doesn’t even work better.

    Please stop repeating old rhetoric and address these details.

    That goes double for me.

    Triple for you now.

    LOL

  53. John David Anderson
    March 28, 2007 at 11:10 am #

    No new progress. Oh well. My doubts remain, and while it may give you some sense of accomplishment that I resign from this conversation, I’m going to do it anyway.

    I should say that I hope you succeed in your efforts to curtail porn on the web. I think its great that the issue is getting more press. My take on CP80 is that it is a misguided attempt to give the government too much power in order to meet this goal, however.

    Besides that, its really just impossible.

    Given the mostly negative response to CP80 in any technical forum (as discussed on Slashdot, etc.) I don’t suppose it will get much farther as people learn more about its specific goals. Everyone I’ve discussed it with disagrees with CP80 as well, with obvious exception of yourself, and someone named Justin on my own blog. Maybe you know him, I don’t know.

    And if, for some reason, it does get enacted, it will end up in the same boat as the wildly successful government-based social reform policies of the past.

    As for me, I’ll be working on an alternate solution.

  54. Matthew
    March 28, 2007 at 1:26 pm #

    No new progress. Oh well. My doubts remain, and while it may give you some sense of accomplishment that I resign from this conversation, I’m going to do it anyway.

    I don’t. But I do appreciate the fact that many–if not all–the issues have been discussed openly and fervently.

    I should say that I hope you succeed in your efforts to curtail porn on the web. I think its great that the issue is getting more press.

    Thank you.

    My take on CP80 is that it is a misguided attempt to give the government too much power in order to meet this goal, however.

    Besides that, its really just impossible.

    Fair enough. That is one side of an argument. Of course, I say that is isn’t giving the government too much power and that it is possible.

    Given the mostly negative response to CP80 in any technical forum (as discussed on Slashdot, etc.) I don’t suppose it will get much farther as people learn more about its specific goals. Everyone I’ve discussed it with disagrees with CP80 as well, with obvious exception of yourself, and someone named Justin on my own blog. Maybe you know him, I don’t know.

    I appreciate that. I also know that there are plenty of technical people who do agree that it can be done and that it is a great solution.

    And if, for some reason, it does get enacted, it will end up in the same boat as the wildly successful government-based social reform policies of the past.

    There are plenty of social reform policies that are successful. You shouldn’t be so pessimistic.

    As for me, I’ll be working on an alternate solution.

    I will be excited to hear it when you have it ready.

    Until someone comes up with a better soltuion, I am a staunch CP80 supporter.

  55. Pete Ashdown
    April 2, 2007 at 3:23 pm #

    “Until someone comes up with a better soltuion, I am a staunch CP80 supporter.”

    1. http://dansguardian.org/ (free)
    2. http://urlblacklist.com/ (free for personal use)

    Don’t understand? Then use an ISP who does. 10 years of the above solution and we’ve received only complaints of overblocking. No government intervention required.

  56. GtRl
    April 3, 2007 at 7:59 am #

    1. http://dansguardian.org/ (free)
    2. http://urlblacklist.com/ (free for personal use)

    Don’t understand? Then use an ISP who does. 10 years of the above solution and we’ve received only complaints of overblocking. No government intervention required.

    Those are great options–but how are those going to stop a teen who purchases a laptop off of ebay and starts surfing porn from a free-to-air hotspot?

    There is no accountability or responsibility on the Internet for pornographers. While there is no accountability, filters will NEVER work as well as we need them to work.

    CP80 is working towards the same level of accountability and responsibility you find anywhere else in civil society–so why not on the Internet. That is why CP80 is a step in the right direction.

    Even Larry Lessig agrees that the government should be involved in some measure to create order on the Internet:

    http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003738.shtml

    Children have the right to access and use the Internet; Parents have the right to expect that they can make choices for their children; and the world has the right to create social policy for the Internet.

    Let the world decide what they want the Internet to be. I think you will find they want it to be a place of order and civility.

  57. Pete Ashdown
    April 3, 2007 at 9:13 am #

    The world decide? Let me give you a little perspective here. The Philippines is a trading partner with the USA. We have a military base there. By all accounts they are a longtime ally. Yet read this article about the continuing trade of young children.

    This nation, and indeed this planet has not been able to come to a decision on something as clearcut as child slavery. It is pure fantasy to think that cutting across social boundaries and categorizing what is offensive for the entire planet is going to be any easier. Here’s an additional “conundrum” for your CP80 pals, burqa or bikini? Islamic “Sharia” law is very clear. Whose moral standards will CP80 follow?

    As for your teenager with a laptop, there will always be a route of circumvention. CP80 is easily bypassed by proxies and anonymizers.

    There is a tide of illegal content already being distributed on the Internet and that river just keeps flowing. If you really want to control the entire Internet, get rid of it.

  58. GtRl
    April 3, 2007 at 10:12 am #

    The world decide? Let me give you a little perspective here. The Philippines is a trading partner with the USA. We have a military base there. By all accounts they are a longtime ally. Yet read this article about the continuing trade of young children.

    So let me get this straight. Since it is difficult, you are suggesting that we shouldn’t try to solve the problem?

    This nation, and indeed this planet has not been able to come to a decision on something as clearcut as child slavery. It is pure fantasy to think that cutting across social boundaries and categorizing what is offensive for the entire planet is going to be any easier.

    Just a majority of the world. If a country doesn’t want to participate in the social environment and play by the rules, they remove themselves.

    Here’s an additional “conundrum” for your CP80 pals, burqa or bikini? Islamic “Sharia” law is very clear. Whose moral standards will CP80 follow?

    It will follow a standard created by a body like the UN. That should be the standard applied and countries can either choose to follow the rule or not.

    As for your teenager with a laptop, there will always be a route of circumvention.

    Yes, but without accountability and responsibility that route isn’t necessarily secretive or risky, its everywhere.

    Let’s apply your hands-off, filters are enough policy to something like smoking. So since cigarettes have filters, you are suggesting that we should do away with laws that make it illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, and simply rely on parents telling their kids not to smoke and filters on the cigarettes?

    That is not a solution that protects children from making horrible decisions before they are old enough to make them. And the same applies to Internet porn. Filters are not sufficient and parents do not have the tools they need to enforce their decisions for their families.

    The same level of accountability and responsibility that exists in any civil society should be applied to the Internet.

    CP80 is easily bypassed by proxies and anonymizers.

    Sure. But now there are laws and Internet governance standards put in place to punish those people that supply or enable the bypassing of the standard.

    Now there is accountability.

    There is a tide of illegal content already being distributed on the Internet and that river just keeps flowing.

    So just because it is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something about it.

    Applying your own standard to the article about human slavery, you would suggest that since it is such a difficult problem to solve, that we should turn a blind eye to it. That we should filter-out any mention of it, so that we aren’t bothered by it. That we should just accept it and go on our merry way, and not make it illegal. And while we are at it, why not repeal the Child Pornography laws, and identity theft laws, hacking laws, and all the other laws that protect us.

    Yes it is difficult, but not impossible.

    If you really want to control the entire Internet, get rid of it.

    That statement is just the kind of “cooling effect” that an unregulated Internet is having on free speech.

    Why do you believe so adamantly that the Internet is above the law?

  59. Pete Ashdown
    April 3, 2007 at 2:33 pm #

    So let me get this straight. Since it is difficult, you are suggesting that we shouldn’t try to solve the problem?

    No, in my previous post, I gave you a solution to the problem. One that has been serving my customers for over a decade.

    Unfortunately, what CP80 proposes isn’t difficult, it is impossible.

    You’re never going to find the UN, IANA, ICANN, or Team America willing to take on the mantle of defining and moderating standards of morality for the entire planet. What passes in Amsterdam doesn’t pass in Riyadh. You’re also never going to find any network provider willing to cut off their nose to spite their face and block an entire economic entity off the Internet for a group who wishes to nanny their citizens. Even China will not make this choice to preserve their government.

    CP80’s attempt to compare the Internet to radio, television, and a toaster shows a stark ignorance for what the Internet is and is not. It is not a technically sound solution in any sense. Those reasons have been clearly laid out by myself and others. They continue to be ignored by CP80 proponents.

    Why do you believe so adamantly that the Internet is above the law?

    It is utterly pathetic that so-called “conservatives” who espouse small government and “personal responsibility” are so hellbent on regulating the Internet and individual behavior. One can be addicted to everything from video violence to shopping and chocolate, but I don’t hear any ludicrous proposals to curtail accessibility to those. How many people have used religious text to inspire their crimes? Yet I see no calls for expurgating the Bible and leaving the Beatitudes.

    I do not believe anyone or anything is above the law, but I firmly believe that ignorant law is a waste of time and can be damaging to business. My business continues to serve the individual who chooses to parent their children on their own. I continue to fight against those who wish to parent my children for me as I will fight against mislaid attempts of excessive regulation.

  60. Michael Place
    April 3, 2007 at 2:54 pm #

    “Those are great options–but how are those going to stop a teen who purchases a laptop off of ebay and starts surfing porn from a free-to-air hotspot?”

    Huh? If I understand CP80 correctly, it won’t do a thing in that scenario either.

    Currently, XMission offers free WiFi at a number of locations in Utah. Are you suggesting that they should be required to restrict non-“clean” ports at those locations, just because the access might be used by minors?

  61. Michael Place
    April 3, 2007 at 3:58 pm #

    ” CP80 is easily bypassed by proxies and anonymizers.

    Sure. But now there are laws and Internet governance standards put in place to punish those people that supply or enable the bypassing of the standard.

    Now there is accountability.”

    Woah. Hold the phone.

    You’re proposing that we punish people who supply methods for bypassing CP80?

    Is this idea seriously under discussion over there at cp80.org?

  62. GtRl
    April 4, 2007 at 11:29 am #

    No, in my previous post, I gave you a solution to the problem. One that has been serving my customers for over a decade.

    That wasn’t a solution to the problem. Not at all. If you think it is, it shows your limited understanding of what the problem is. Filters are not ever going to allow a parent from controlling how his or her children access the Internet, because the Internet is so widely accessible–it is impossible without holding those who provide said access responsible, in the same manner that communities hold people providing access to adult content everywhere else in the world.

    There is no accountability or responsibility today with regard to the Internet.

    Unfortunately, what CP80 proposes isn’t difficult, it is impossible.

    Technically it is not impossible. Socially it is difficult, but not impossible.

    You’re never going to find the UN, IANA, ICANN, or Team America willing to take on the mantle of defining and moderating standards of morality for the entire planet.

    It already exists and they are already working on it.

    What passes in Amsterdam doesn’t pass in Riyadh.

    Individuals make the choices, not the governments.

    You’re also never going to find any network provider willing to cut off their nose to spite their face and block an entire economic entity off the Internet for a group who wishes to nanny their citizens.

    Individuals make the choices, not the ISP. The network provider only offers the tools to make the choice, not make the choice for the individual.

    Even China will not make this choice to preserve their government.

    Exactly.

    CP80’s attempt to compare the Internet to radio, television, and a toaster shows a stark ignorance for what the Internet is and is not.

    And your insistence that the Internet is “magic”, incomprehensible and unalterable shows your fear that the people of world might just alter your precious Internet.

    If the people want better organization, they have every right to get it.

    It is not a technically sound solution in any sense. Those reasons have been clearly laid out by myself and others. They continue to be ignored by CP80 proponents.

    And CP80 has answered everyone of those reasons and shown how it would work–and solve the problem.

    It is utterly pathetic that so-called “conservatives” who espouse small government and “personal responsibility” are so hellbent on regulating the Internet and individual behavior.

    And incredibly hypocritical that you are glad to embrace the freedoms you enjoy in the US–which are governed and created by rules, laws and regulation–but you don’t want that same level applied to an unregulated nature of Internet porn.

    What would you do if someone put a gigantic billboard of hardcore sex across the street from your home? Would you support small government and do nothing or would you call the police and have it removed because you have an expectation of living in a civil community?

    One can be addicted to everything from video violence to shopping and chocolate, but I don’t hear any ludicrous proposals to curtail accessibility to those.

    Really? Like making illegal for children to buy alcohol, tobacco and porn. Or the inability for anyone to buy known prescription drugs.

    Those laws already exist, but you don’t want to make it illegal for children to access porn on the Internet? Why not?

    How many people have used religious text to inspire their crimes? Yet I see no calls for expurgating the Bible and leaving the Beatitudes.

    Your right, lets do away with all law and just let personal morality rule the day. I am pretty sure that is what Somalia does.

    I do not believe anyone or anything is above the law, but I firmly believe that ignorant law is a waste of time and can be damaging to business.

    Well, Internet pornography is above the law, right now. So what are you doing about it? Offering free-to-air hotspots where any kid with a internet-capable device can access all the porn he wants? Or is it filtered? Just wondering?

    My business continues to serve the individual who chooses to parent their children on their own. I continue to fight against those who wish to parent my children for me as I will fight against mislaid attempts of excessive regulation.

    Okay, so you are fighting laws that prevent your children from buying alcohol, tobacco and porn–and drug dealers that try to push drugs at local highschools? And you are only relying on your parenting, and not those laws that would help you?

    C’mon. You are happy that those laws exist and there are no reasons why similar standards, rules and regulations shouldn’t exist on the Internet.

  63. GtRl
    April 4, 2007 at 11:35 am #

    Huh? If I understand CP80 correctly, it won’t do a thing in that scenario either.

    Actually it does, because the person offering the hotspot would be held responsible for allowing a minor to access porn.

    Currently, XMission offers free WiFi at a number of locations in Utah. Are you suggesting that they should be required to restrict non-”clean” ports at those locations, just because the access might be used by minors?

    If a business opened up a free magazine stand in downtown SLC and allowed anyone to grab whatever magazine he or she wanted–including hardcore, XXX, violent porn, that business would be shutdown immediately. Why is a hotspot any different if it doesn’t restrict access?

  64. GtRl
    April 4, 2007 at 11:39 am #

    Woah. Hold the phone.

    You’re proposing that we punish people who supply methods for bypassing CP80?

    If a person allowed someone to access porn over Community ports anonymously, yes, absolutely, they would be held responsible. If the person supplied an anonymous proxy on the Open Ports, then no.

    Is this idea seriously under discussion over there at cp80.org?

    Yes.

  65. Pete Ashdown
    April 4, 2007 at 11:50 am #

    Extrapolations and assumptions. Chocolate magically turns into tobacco and I’m a purveyer of porn because I don’t decide what people can view from XMission hotspots. All technical problems have been resolved but not answered and the UN has accepted CP80, because CP80 says so. Differing societal standards will be worked out with a little hand waving by “someone else”.

    Individual choice is not supported by categorizing content into what is “community” and what is not. Two choices. Right now, Dansguardian and URLBlacklist offer dozens. Right now, there are several competing standards for rating content on web pages. Right now, the last attempt to legislate this crap that I warned about is locked up in the courts, wasting our money.

    I’m happy to talk reality without the attacks on my character. If any CP80 proponent wants to debate this in public at a neutral forum, I’d be thrilled to answer that charge. It is apparent though that GtRl would rather levy ad hominem than realize the Internet is a different medium from anything else (billboards, television, radio, toasters) and all attempts legislate the subtleties of moral standards on it are doomed to fail. The only solution to this problem is proper parenting with proper tools.

    GtRl, you represent your organization well. Over and out.

  66. Michael Place
    April 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm #

    GtRl, thanks for your responses. I’ve been meaning to ask, are you a representative of the CP80 group?

  67. GtRl
    April 4, 2007 at 12:52 pm #

    Extrapolations and assumptions. Chocolate magically turns into tobacco and I’m a purveyer of porn because I don’t decide what people can view from XMission hotspots.

    If you allow children to access porn over an XMission hotspot–when the parent does not want the children to access porn–and take no steps to prevent that child from accessing pornography, well, you said it best.

    All technical problems have been resolved but not answered and the UN has accepted CP80, because CP80 says so. Differing societal standards will be worked out with a little hand waving by “someone else”.

    So we should all listen to Pete and just give up trying, because it’s difficult and you know what’s best for everyone.

    Individual choice is not supported by categorizing content into what is “community” and what is not.

    Why not? A lot of content in the US is separated by that very standard. Why not content and activity on the Internet?

    Two choices. Right now, Dansguardian and URLBlacklist offer dozens.

    But not when free-to-air, unfiltered hotspots are available. Then what?

    Right now, there are several competing standards for rating content on web pages. Right now, the last attempt to legislate this crap that I warned about is locked up in the courts, wasting our money.

    Great for Web pages. What about all of the other technologies used to transfer files over the Internet? The CP80 solution deals with all of it, past, present and future.

    Furthermore, all though the courts are hesitant to pass laws, they do see a need for it. They are still trying to figure out how to do it and are grossly mislead that filters are sufficient.

    I’m happy to talk reality without the attacks on my character. If any CP80 proponent wants to debate this in public at a neutral forum, I’d be thrilled to answer that charge.

    You should email them at info@cp80.org.

    It is apparent though that GtRl would rather levy ad hominem than realize the Internet is a different medium from anything else (billboards, television, radio, toasters) and all attempts legislate the subtleties of moral standards on it are doomed to fail.

    it is apparent that Pete would rather levy ad hominem than realize he doesn’t own the Internet and that he doesn’t speak for the world.

    At least CP80 is trying to give the world a voice. If you think protecting children from pornography isn’t important, okay…

    The only solution to this problem is proper parenting with proper tools.

    Could not agree with you more. But the proper tools don’t exist and if you think filter most of the Internet most of the time is sufficient, who are you kidding.

    Get Over yourself and get your head out of the sand.

  68. Michael Place
    April 4, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    OK, another question. What liability (if any) does CP80 place on ISPs? Will they be responsible for policing the content of their users, and if so, what punishment will be imposed on the ISP for violations?

  69. Michael Place
    April 5, 2007 at 5:51 pm #

    Extrapolations and assumptions. Chocolate magically turns into tobacco and I’m a purveyer of porn because I don’t decide what people can view from XMission hotspots.

    If you allow children to access porn over an XMission hotspot–when the parent does not want the children to access porn–and take no steps to prevent that child from accessing pornography, well, you said it best.

    Absolute hogwash. That’s like calling the telephone company a purveyor of drugs because people use cell phones to arrange drug deals.

    All technical problems have been resolved but not answered and the UN has accepted CP80, because CP80 says so. Differing societal standards will be worked out with a little hand waving by “someone else”.

    So we should all listen to Pete and just give up trying, because it’s difficult and you know what’s best for everyone.

    Pete never said that. (Though, frankly if I were you, I’d start shying away from the “you/I know what’s best for everyone” argument. Irony is a cruel mistress.)

    Look, try all you like. The problem is that you’re trying to get us to accept a solution with serious limitations simply because you feel that it’s the best available. Pete, John and myself have all pointed out to you that your support of a solution doesn’t magically make that solution viable, nor does it dismiss valid criticism. What it does do is paint you as arrogant and bullheaded.

    You’re engaging in dishonest arguments and it makes you and CP80 look like a bunch of amateurs. Instead of attacking Pete, you would be much better off providing even a single piece of evidence that the United Nations has CP80 under consideration. Do you have one? If so, provide it.

    Individual choice is not supported by categorizing content into what is “community” and what is not.

    Why not? A lot of content in the US is separated by that very standard. Why not content and activity on the Internet?

    For all of the reasons given by Pete and by John. Do we need to go over them all again?

    Two choices. Right now, Dansguardian and URLBlacklist offer dozens.

    But not when free-to-air, unfiltered hotspots are available. Then what?

    Then we sue our neighbors into oblivion because we can’t manage our own children. Right? It’s all about “accountability” so long as we can shift the blame somewhere else. We account for our actions by punishing our neighbors. Good plan.

    Seriously, though, how can you even consider this? You or Matthew (which one was it?) mentioned that a child could go out and “buy a $100 laptop on ebay” and use it to access the ‘net at unfiltered locations.

    You’re telling me that you can’t manage your child to the point where you can prevent them from making undetected and expensive purchases on Ebay, and yet the accountability rests with Pete for providing them unfiltered access once they’ve done so? Unbelievable.

    Right now, there are several competing standards for rating content on web pages. Right now, the last attempt to legislate this crap that I warned about is locked up in the courts, wasting our money.

    Great for Web pages. What about all of the other technologies used to transfer files over the Internet? The CP80 solution deals with all of it, past, present and future.

    Here’s the problem with that. The only way that you can guarantee continual effectiveness is to continually criminalize circumvention technology. If you don’t immediately see the fix you’re in, you might want to read up on the history of cryptography export restrictions. (Hint: source code is generally protected by the First Amendment.)

    Plus, you have very serious problems with this approach even with existing technology. CP80 is effectively outlawing the Tor Onion router network, (which was funded by the Navy, incidentally. I’m sure they’ll love that idea). You’ve killed the anonymous proxy (which I can guarantee you, Mr. Lessig will not approve of, so you might want to rethink your choice to quote him so often). You’re requiring ISPs to log IP address assignments. Have you checked with any major ISPs on that, by the way? I could go on but I’ve given you plenty of homework to do, I’m sure…

    At least CP80 is trying to give the world a voice. If you think protecting children from pornography isn’t important, okay…

    Are you purposely trying to discredit yourself, or is this the way you normally talk to critics?

    Pete has provided a solution to his customer and he reports that his customers have been satisfied with that solution. AOL reports that 85% of the users of its filtering product are “highly satisfied”. If those customers are satisfied with the solution that’s given to them, how can you claim that you know better?

    Your claim that Pete doesn’t think that protecting children from pornography is important is simply untrue. You make unsubstantiated, dismissive attacks on his character and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    You do yourself and your cause a great disservice.

    P.S. Pete’s email address is freely available. If CP80 wants a debate, they should contact him. After all, it’s in their best interest to publicize the issue — not Pete’s.

  70. GtRl
    April 6, 2007 at 9:55 am #

    > Absolute hogwash. That’s like calling the telephone
    > company a purveyor of drugs because people use cell phones > to arrange drug deals.

    But if a video rental store allows a child to rent a xxx video, they are held accountable. They didn’t make the movie, they are just letting the kid have access to it.

    > Pete never said that. (Though, frankly if I were you, I’d start
    > shying away from the “you/I know what’s best for everyone”
    > argument. Irony is a cruel mistress.)

    Yes, she can be.

    > Look, try all you like. The problem is that you’re trying to get >us to accept a solution with serious limitations simply because >you feel that it’s the best available. Pete, John and myself have >all pointed out to you that your support of a solution doesn’t >magically make that solution viable, nor does it dismiss valid >criticism. What it does do is paint you as arrogant and >bullheaded.

    Serious limitations? If by seriously limiting a child’s access to porn, yes it has those limitations.

    Furthermore, your badgering and obvious devotion to Internet over all else makes your statements questionable.

    > You’re engaging in dishonest arguments

    Great example. What arguments are dishonest?

    > providing even a single piece of evidence that the United
    > Nations has CP80 under consideration. Do you have one? If so, > provide it.

    I am sure that announcement will come when they are ready to.

    > For all of the reasons given by Pete and by John. Do we need
    > to go over them all again?

    You gave no reasons. I realize that you all believe the Internet is different. But of the real world were painted with the same brush of accountability and responsibility that is currently applied to the Internet, we would have a complete world of chaos.

    > Then we sue our neighbors into oblivion because we can’t
    > manage our own children. Right? It’s all about “accountability” > so long as we can shift the blame somewhere else. We account > for our actions by punishing our neighbors. Good plan.

    It would be your choice and at least you would have one. If your kid continually went over to your neighbor’s house and got drunk, because he left a sixpack in the fridge, that wouldn’t bother you? C’mon…

    > You’re telling me that you can’t manage your child to the
    > point where you can prevent them from making undetected
    > and expensive purchases on Ebay, and yet the accountability
    > rests with Pete for providing them unfiltered access once
    > they’ve done so? Unbelievable.

    $100 is not expensive. Setting up accounts at the bank does not require parental approval. And unless you stay connected at the hip with your child, no one can know what happens during the course of the day.

    The idea is to make a safer environment.

    Secondly, why not provide free filtered access at least.

    > Here’s the problem with that. The only way that you can
    > guarantee continual effectiveness is to continually criminalize > circumvention technology.

    Yes. That is what the legislation does.

    > Plus, you have very serious problems with this approach
    > even with existing technology. CP80 is effectively outlawing
    > the Tor Onion router network, (which was funded by the Navy, > incidentally. I’m sure they’ll love that idea). You’ve killed the
    > anonymous proxy

    No it’s not. Have you even read through the solution?

    > (which I can guarantee you, Mr. Lessig will not approve of, so > you might want to rethink your choice to quote him so often).

    The laws and Internet governance proposed are similar if not exactly what he proposes in the link above. Nothing is outright banned. It is only organized so people can choose.

    Want to put up an anonymous proxy, do it on the Open Ports.

    > You’re requiring ISPs to log IP address assignments. Have you > checked with any major ISPs on that, by the way?

    Yes, and they have said that they already are doing it or didn’t think it would be that difficult.

    > Are you purposely trying to discredit yourself, or is this the
    > way you normally talk to critics?

    Same to you. I criticize you policy of free-to-air, unfiltered Internet connections that would give children unlimited access to Internet pornography and you jump down my throat?

    > Pete has provided a solution to his customer and he reports > that his customers have been satisfied with that solution. AOL > reports that 85% of the users of its filtering product are “highly > satisfied”. If those customers are satisfied with the solution
    > that’s given to them, how can you claim that you know better?

    When between 40-60% of teens are reported to have been exposed to Internet pornography, one has to wonder if those satisfied customers even realize that filters aren’t working or if their expectations have been lowered to such a point that they are willing to tolerate it.

    > Your claim that Pete doesn’t think that protecting children
    > from pornography is important is simply untrue.

    Then why offer free-to-air, unfiltered Internet connections?

  71. Michael Place
    April 6, 2007 at 10:12 pm #

    GtRl, this is my last post to you in this thread. You can respond if you like, but after this one goes up, I’m done.

    A couple of your responses don’t significantly contribute to the discussion of CP80 and I’ve left them out. If you truly feel that I’ve left out a piece of your argument that contributes significantly to the overall structure of your belief, cut and paste that section from your post that I’m now replying to and I will agree to address those. After that though, I’m through.

    But if a video rental store allows a child to rent a xxx video, they are held accountable. They didn’t make the movie, they are just letting the kid have access to it.

    The Internet is not a video store (or a toaster!) but to boil it down for you, ISPs are protected by Section 230 of the CDA:

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    If you think that you can get that section of the CDA overturned, best of luck. You’ll be fighting some of the largest corporations in the world — some even bigger than IBM — and you will loose.

    Furthermore, your badgering and obvious devotion to Internet over all else makes your statements questionable.

    > You’re engaging in dishonest arguments

    Great example. What arguments are dishonest?

    Your statement immediately prior to the question, for one. Claiming that I have an “obvious devotion to the Internet above all else” is not true. Attempting to discredit me by tying that claim to the soundness of my arguments is dishonest. An honest argument would be to evaluate each of the statements and to leave my devotions out of it.

    > Plus, you have very serious problems with this approach
    > even with existing technology. CP80 is effectively outlawing
    > the Tor Onion router network, (which was funded by the Navy, > incidentally. I’m sure they’ll love that idea). You’ve killed the
    > anonymous proxy

    No it’s not. Have you even read through the solution?

    I’ve read through it several times. The CP80 site is extraordinarily light on details. On John Anderson’s blog, he asked multiple times to be pointed to specific areas of the site for clarification. I don’t recall a single response to those requests pointing him to actual text on the CP80 site.

    Tor operates for the purpose of allowing individuals to access websites without revealing their IP address, among other things. The Navy uses Tor to gather intelligence, NGOs use it, as do political dissidents. For many, many people using Tor, they must access it on port 80. This might be due to an outbound firewall, or simply as a matter of policy. You’ve told me that, “If you want to run an anonymous proxy, just put it on the open port.” That won’t work for those people. This does serious damage to a vital Internet ideal. Tor is a service, which to operate most effectively, must run on port 80. Either you keep Tor and render CP80 ineffective or you outlaw Tor. Which is it?

    The laws and Internet governance proposed are similar if not exactly what he proposes in the link above. Nothing is outright banned.

    I just gave you an example of something that is banned outright — running anonymous proxies on port 80. You’ve said yourself that open and “unfiltered” access points would be banned. The CP80 site confirms that fact.

    Even beyond that, however, lies one of the core problem with CP80. In order for CP80 to function effectively, you must ban, and continue to ban all technology that can act to circumvent it. Bans on technology inevitably involve bans on certain types of source code and source code is constitutionally protected free speech.

    To summarize: if you don’t ban circumvention measures, CP80 does little good. If you do, you violate the First Amendment.

    > You’re requiring ISPs to log IP address assignments. Have you > checked with any major ISPs on that, by the way?

    Yes, and they have said that they already are doing it or didn’t think it would be that difficult.

    Name one national ISP and the person you spoke with willing to go on record that they and their ISP are supporters of CP80.

    When between 40-60% of teens are reported to have been exposed to Internet pornography, one has to wonder if those satisfied customers even realize that filters aren’t working or if their expectations have been lowered to such a point that they are willing to tolerate it.

    One can wonder that all one likes, but wondering doesn’t mean a thing without evidence. I’ve given multiple cases that show that parents are satisfied with the filtering options that they’re being given. The judge in the COPA case has ruled that filters do provide reasonable protection. He goes into even more detail than I have. I suggest you read it.

    I’m not sure why a person would be “highly satisfied” with a product that does not work, but if you need another example, your questioning of those consumers, without supporting evidence, is yet example of your tendency to engage in dishonest arguments.

    I all honesty, I appreciate your idealism and your tenacity, but I remain firmly opposed to your “solution” and your argument. Best of luck.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.