 Riplin
join:2002-05-13
canada | LOL! Good Luck! | |
|
 | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
March 23rd, @01:02PM
| Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP I expect the ISP's will fight this in court, not as any kind of 1st amendment issue, but for the onerous burden put on the ISP to maintain up to date IP address lists for customers desiring the block. I just can't see the ISP's agreeing to this without a major fight - too much expense involved.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. | |
|
| | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
March 23rd, @01:21PM
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by vpoko  :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's.
But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites.
Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config.
Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem.
Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | | xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Since its just blocking a list of porn sites, Id think they'd just send all the http traffic through a transparent proxy. | |
|
| | | | | 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. | |
|
| | | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by reub2000 :Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. Use of proxies can improve web content viewing. That's the whole premise behind a content-accelerator: you proxy a group of users behind a caching device. The first person to visit a site experiences a small access-time penalty (generally not something noticeable). All subsequent visitors for the target site fetch content from the local cache, not the remote site. Therefore, their fetches are done from closer hosts, thereby accelerating downloads (since the fetches are only going one or two hops, not tens of hops).
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP What about dynamic content. How would it detect that? | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
Othello235
@silvereaglemfg.com | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP As long as the page is written correctly, the author will have included a tag noting the dynamic content, which will then not be cached | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP But what if a page was not properly marked as dynamic? I'd be POed if I couldn't see new posts on one of my favorite forums. If I wanted caching, I'd just run squid on my server.
Also, how would a web cache detect http traffic? Would it just pass all port 80 traffic. What about sites on port 83? What about sites on port 1351 or 8684? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by vpoko :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's. But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites. Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config. Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem. Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers. .
Set up your POP routers to do packet inspection.
Well, if they're using PPPoE for connectivity, there's already a level of authentication that could be used to apply profiles to a connection (e.g., force specific accounts through filtered proxies). A possibly more brute force method would be to send all users through HTTP proxies. Enable authentication on the proxies. Customers that have selected porn filtering get additional content-filtering rules applied to their sessions. Users not in the filtered class don't have the content-filtering rules applied.
Doable, but not something that most ISP engineers are likely to be happy to do.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | | 
CoxCable4
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | utah residents will no longer have to worry about porn from their isps, because all the isps will leave. | |
|
| | | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Where there is demand, there is supply. Someone will stay, it'll just be expensive. Call it punishment for living with mormons. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP You know, that's really not an entirely facetious solution. If ISP's were to terminate everyone who wanted porn-blocking, other ISP's would begin to cater to those customers (supply and demand). Some ISP's would be porn-friendly and some would block it for everyone; the problem of having to maintain lists is solved. | |
|
| | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by vpoko :You know, that's really not an entirely facetious solution. If ISP's were to terminate everyone who wanted porn-blocking, other ISP's would begin to cater to those customers (supply and demand). Some ISP's would be porn-friendly and some would block it for everyone; the problem of having to maintain lists is solved. Again, the lists wouldn't need to be maintained by individual ISPs. Most likely, it could be implemented in the form of DNSBLs.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | | |
| | 
ficken
don't get any bright ideas
Premium
join:2000-10-07
11111 | I would view it as a state attempting to interrupt interstate commerce. I think that is going to be the best angle the ISP's can work for.
--
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. | |
|
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by ficken :I would view it as a state attempting to interrupt interstate commerce. I think that is going to be the best angle the ISP's can work for. Actually, what will ultimately doom this is that, if they block by IPs rather than names, more than just porn sites will get blocked.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
|
a
@qwest.net | Re: LOL! lol, i'm glad i'm not lds, i would be embarrased. | |
|
| |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: LOL! Oh, you're preaching to the choir, I agree with you 100%. I'm just intrigued by the technical challenges of implementing this dumb policy  | |
|
| 
flawlessly
Premium
join:2004-02-09
USA
clubs: | I'm moving to Utah :P | |
|
seropith
Rou
Premium
join:2002-11-12
El Paso, TX
clubs: | With all the... With all the private party blocking software, don't we have better places to spend public funds?
(N) | |
|
| 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Re: With all the... I agree maybe we could feed the poor or homeless?
Na,
Lets Make the parents to not have to supervise their children.
--
--Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
| | rdumont
join:2005-01-28
New York, NY
| Re: With all the... said by packetscan :I agree maybe we could feed the poor or homeless? Na,
Lets make the people find their own jobs and sources of income. | |
|
| |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by packetscan :I agree maybe we could feed the poor or homeless? Na, Lets Make the parents to not have to supervise their children. How bout we employ the poor and homeless to maintain the porn filter lists. Everybody wins, then:
- lazy prudes get their filters
- poor and homeless get an income stream (and maybe some enjoyment)
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | Can I get an application? Wow, paid view porn? When can I interview? | |
|
| cobo6
join:2002-02-18
Willingboro, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Can I get an application? said by tomkb :Wow, paid view porn? When can I interview? I am with you on this one, where and when can i sign up for an interview. Also how much is the pay rate? lol | |
|
| | t10
join:2003-05-25
Woodbridge, ON | Re: Can I get an application? I should sooo apply, I got years of expirience!!  :o | |
|
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| I want the next level.... I'm sure that there will have to be an "appeals" process for those sites which claim to be "art" as opposed to "porn".
I want a job sitting on that review panel--hopefully the quality, at least, will be a little better than the run of the mill stuff....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| 
Wally
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Clearfield, UT | Sorry, I already got a head start on you guys. I'm in Utah and have many years experience "under my belt" as it were.
--
Wallys World! | |
|
| | 
P2PPirate2
join:2005-02-02
New York, NY | Re: Can I get an application? work 8hrs a day, sitting in from of the computer, view unlimited porn site with nobody to bother you and get paid?? Can this be every men's dream job??? | |
|
| | | 
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Can I get an application? said by P2PPirate2 :work 8hrs a day, sitting in from of the computer, view unlimited porn site with nobody to bother you and get paid?? Can this be every men's dream job??? Who'd WANT to bother you..??!!
--
A is A | |
|
| | | |
| 
bolt
Former Broadband Exile
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Charlestown, IN | It will probably be outsourced to India anyways. | |
|
| | drone65535
join:2001-06-05
Seattle, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Can I get an application? said by bolt :It will probably be outsourced to India anyways. OK, you just made milk shoot out of my nose. I hope no families in Utah saw that... | |
|
| |
WTF_WRF
| But if the folks in India see a man and woman; two men; two women; a whole herd of men or women; or any combination man/men; woman / women doing things with each other that will be ok...
Now have someone having sex with a cow.. that's PORNOGRAPHY!!!  | |
|
| | 
EdibleTarget
Real Gamers Dont Use Consoles
join:2004-12-02
Lowell, MA | lol along with everything else =D | |
|
| rosmini
join:2000-05-03
Albuquerque, NM | This job will be outsourced overseas. | |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
| Lets the rants begin! You know while they're at it they should outlaw pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex and masturbation afterall these are all "sins"
--
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." | |
|
| 
Bobcat
Volvo sucks
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Lets the rants begin! said by BodyBumper :You know while they're at it they should outlaw pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex and masturbation afterall these are all "sins" But it's Utah, so polygamy would be OK!
--
"I truly am not that concerned about him."
Pres. Bush on Osama bin Laden, March 13, 2002 | |
|
| | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | Re: Lets the rants begin! Actually polygamy was thrown out by Utah in order to be granted Statehood. Which means poygamy has not been official for a long time.
Doesn't mean some freaks in some corner of the state aren't happily practicing it, though.
| |
|
| | | 
TrainBuff
The New Haven Railroad
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Buffalo, NY
clubs: | Re: Lets the rants begin! Why would a person want more then one wife? I can see all of his wife's having PMS at the same time. | |
|
| |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL |  ROFLMFAO
| |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
Johnny Moon
join:2004-08-30
Northridge, CA
| Government censorship? I don't see how this would pass Constitutional challenge. It's so on the face of it unconstitutional IMHO that they have to be total idiots. The people of Utah have one of the most beautiful and cleanest states in America but their L.D.S. religion makes them brain-dead on issues such as this. | |
|
|
GhostChild
@208.0.x.x | Re: Government censorship? Except it's not. The government is not forcing anyone to sign up for the censorship. The government is providing a service for those who voluntarily want to enter into the censorship. | |
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | Censorship! Censorship! And from a state with an interesting past. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
| 
Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
| Re: question said by fatness : quote:
This means that somewhere, in some Utah government office, they are now looking to hire and pay an "internet porn validation officer".
Will this be an appointed position or an erectelective position? Good question this stimulating andclitcritical post will bare much scrutiny.
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins". Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner" - (Llama Works Equipment ) - | |
|
| |
ITGuy72
Permanently Disco
Premium
join:2001-11-01
New York | Free porn blocking And it's completely optional, i.e. you have to "opt in". Not sure what all the fuss is about. | |
|
| achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: Free porn blocking said by ITGuy72 :And it's completely optional, i.e. you have to "opt in". Not sure what all the fuss is about. The fuss is that, yet again, the Gov't has taken it upon themselves to force someone OTHER than the parents to nursemaid.
If parents want to block porn from their computer, THEY need to be the ones actively doing it, not forcing their ISP to bear the cost to do this.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | 
clevere1
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Vancouver, WA | Re: Free porn blocking It is UTAH after all. | |
|
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: Free porn blocking said by clevere1 :It is UTAH after all. You do have a good point there...
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
Voyager2K2
join:2001-10-04
Wayne, PA
| Interesting Experiment Let's see how it plays out.
Of course the porn hosts are going to have to play nice too, but why shouldn't they?
I really honestly think most porn hosts don't want minors viewing their stuff anyway.
Up 'till now all they could do is register with kid-safe filters and put the 18+ gateway (yeah right!).
If it's true porn is broadband's dirty little secret then the ISP's shouldn't squawk about setting up the mandated filters.
As I said, let's see how it plays out before we start invoking the 1st amendment. | |
|
compugeek
Have you pooped today?
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Pickerington, OH | Czar Compugeek the new Utah Anti Porn Czar. lol...
--
»www.itsnewtoyou.biz | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Really stupid If parents want to bar their kids from viewing certain sites, they can use Net-Nanny or any of the other client-side filtering mechanisms. I don't see why the government has to step in and require that the ISPs provide this service.
Then again, this is the same state that gave us Orrin Hatch.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
tapeloop
Long live Ollie.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| vague at best While on the surface it seems like it wouldn't be that harmful, if you read the bill you'll see that there is abundant use of the phrase "content harmful to minors" but no definition of such content. Could bad investment tips be considered harmful? What about a site that has Celine Dion recordings?
And funny how all those people you hear whining about the "excess government" going on in the anti-muni forums, they're completely...silent about this issue.  | |
|
|
