Why CP80 Won’t Work
There’s been a lot in the news about the recent CP80 initiative, and sides have been pretty polarized. I wanted to formulate and write down my stance so I can use it as a reference.
In short, I think it won’t, and shouldn’t work.
CP80 In a Nutshell
In order to keep from putting words in their mouth, I’ll quote right from their website’s front page:
The CP80 Internet Channel Initiative is a simple solution that would put the choice to access or to block Internet pornography back in the hands of individuals and concerned parents, where it belongs.
The solution leverages existing Internet technologies to organize and categorize content on the Web into two Internet channels: the Community Channels (Ports) and the Open Channels (Ports).
The Community Channels would be for all general-purpose content; and the Open Channels would be for adult content, such as pornography. With content organized into channels, an individual or parent could block access to Internet pornography just as easily as he or she could turn-off unwanted cable-TV channels by simply calling their service provider and requesting that the adult channels or Open Channels be shut off.
cp80.org
In short, the effort is a move to separate Internet content into two buckets: Community and “Open” (their happy word for obscene content). They aim to enforce this separation using the government.
Please check out their website for the whole enchilada. It’s a little hard to understand with all the buzzwords and hijacked vocabulary (”solutions”, “channels”, “leveraging”, etc.), but they make a good effort to explain what they’re up to for even the most technically challenged reader.
The Internet is Not TV
It seems that most people want to argue that because TV is regulated by the government, then the Internet should be too. After all, if Janet Jackson gets in trouble, why can’t Internet pornographers?
There are not enough parallels between content delivery via TV and the Internet to draw any sort of metaphorical points. I can’t stress that enough.
The main issue is ease of broadcast. If you want to start up your own evil rogue TV station, how much time and money would you need to invest, from the ground up, in order to be up and running? First, you’d need some high place with a bucket-load of powerful equipment. If you’re going to bend waves that need to travel miles through the air, it takes a lot of power and a lot of expensive equipment. Needless to say, the barrier for entry for TV broadcasting hobbyists is very high.
How much does it take to publish something on the Internet? At absolutely no cost to myself, I can publish content on the Internet in a matter of hours (that includes walking time to the library).
Second is the issue of ease of traceability: how easy is it to track down a publisher? If I ponied up the capital to start my rogue TV station (which of course would broadcast pirated Thundercats from sun down to sun up) it’s horribly easy to locate my installation. Recording the signal strength from three locations is all it would take. A quick triangulation, a stop to the police office, and anyone could have me in cuffs before supper time.
How easy is it to identify someone publishing content on the Internet? Hard enough to keep the spammers from leaving my inbox. Proxy servers allow for middle-man access. Users can login to one machine from another on the other side of the world. Software virii and spyware can remotely or automatically install web servers and deliver content with no human interaction. I can post to my blog from any country in the world.
Because Internet content delivery is so much easier to get into, and so much harder to trace, I don’t see how analogies to television can really be relevant. The usage of the term “channel” by the CP80 group is truly misleading.
Technical Limitations
The CP80 initiative aims to place bad content on an alternate port in order to allow for more effective filtering measures. Kinda makes sense at first glance, but is actually pretty amusing on subsequent glances.
First, it is incredibly common to tunnel a connection in order to get around port-based filtering. When I am on-site with a client, I often find that the over-zealous IT department is blocking all mail traffic. A quick SSH tunnel solves this problem by allowing me to access the “evil” mail traffic using another arbitrary port. This is by no means a technical marvel. In fact, graphical user interfaces exist for this functionality for most platforms already. Port-based filtering is nothing close to bulletproof.
The other interesting thing is that you’re not always in control of what ports point to your system. Most networks have a limited number of Internet-accessible machines. These special machines have routable IP addresses that are world accessible, while your workstation most likely gets handed a translated address. These world-visible machines forward requests to yours in order to make Internet browsing a capability. Basically, what looks like port 80 on the outside may not necessarily be port 80 on the inside.
Also, much of the modern Internet communication comes in streams. While the page you’re now viewing comes in a static package, an instant message from a buddy or a live video (which is becoming more popular) comes live. Content being delivered on any port can change its flavor at any given moment.
I don’t understand why port-based filtering is a valid approach anyway. Any number of different kinds of services can be offered over any port number. You’d think if content was the problem, then a content-based filtering solution would be more effective.
The next technical limitation is impossibility of being able to police the growing amount of content on the Internet today. The rate of growth and the sheer mass of online content makes content segregation (and thus enforcement) and logical impossibility.
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.” Some recent estimates would place estimates closer to twice that number, but I want to give CP80 a fighting chance.
If you wanted to process this fake, low-ball estimate, static Internet in a year, you’d need to work through nearly 550,000 sites per day. That’s 380 sites per minute.
Okay, let’s say that you only have to categorize things that people complain about. The problem with this approach is that it puts a great amount of strain on an already strained judicial system. Mix in the fact that Internet content publishing is extremely easy and hard to trace, and you’ve got an enforcement situation that is just as impossible.
Philosophical Problems
I think the biggest philosophical problem with CP80’s approach is this: who decides what is bad? The Internet is a global community, and trying to police it with American values isn’t going to work. In a similarly recent (and failed) effort, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) responded to a plea to categorize content by domain name:
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to
protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. Their views on what should be included in a .sex domain would hardly be identical to those in liberal western nations.
IETF, RFC 3675
Besides that fact that every nation has different beliefs (and they have every right to believe differently than we might), every family and person has different beliefs. I don’t need Uncle Sam to tell me what’s right and wrong anymore than Saudi Arabia does, and I like it that way.
Besides, mixing all these beliefs and agendas in some government agency is only going to make content categorization choices harder.
Another interesting point made by the IETF is that seemingly inappropriate content that is actually very helpful might be placed out of view because of differing values. I think it’s inappropriate for my children to view material on birth control and certain details of AIDS prevention right now, but I wouldn’t deem either subject appropriate for all time, for everyone.
The second main issue is the empowering of government officials to decide what I get to publish and where. I have no idea why people want to give the government that sort of power. What if I want to offer my views on the gay/lesbian lifestyle? Would that get marked as inappropriate? The legal nightmare CP80 might cause would probably push many right out of the blogosphere.
It seems to me that one underlying motive people have in supporting CP80 is that it empowers parents to protect their children against pornography. I don’t think is necessarily the case. First, I’ve already discussed a few reasons why port-based filtering is ineffective from a security and reliability standpoint. The main philosophical ire this measure draws, however, is that it asks the United States government to put a bulletproof safeguard against immoral material in my home.
I thought that was my job.
First, no filter will ever keep a determined young person from viewing what they’re after. Filth will always be available, either through technical or social circumvention. Second, as a parent, it is my responsibility to educate and warn my children. Placing an adamantine barrier between them and wrong choices would only make them weak and ignorant. If you want to eliminate negative influences on your children, you’ll probably need to move underground.
If, on the other hand, you want to deploy a safeguard that protects them from accidental exposure, those tools are readily available without the philosophical and technical baggage that CP80 will bring with it.
Alternate Approaches
First, I want to say that I’m not particularly smart, and I don’t pretend to know all the answers. That said, I don’t think I have to have a better idea about eliminating porn on the Internet to know that CP80 is a bad one.
I think any effective measure needs to be privately or (ideally) community based. Commercial content filters are already available that restrict access based on:
- Object analysis: adult-oriented web counters and other services used by the site
- URL
- Keywords and phrases
- Port :)
These software packages also allow for filtering on a number of protocols and ports including FTP, IRC, IM, Newsgroups, Peer-to-peer, and email. Most offer detailed reporting, personalized user profiles, time limits, personal information guards, and more.
Most sell for around $40. That’s going to be much less costly per family than CP80. Australia seems to think this is a better approach.
There are also a number of open source efforts underway to fight the growing tide of filth on the Internet. Some are standards based approaches to community tagging, and others are efforts to provide free tools for filtering:
- PICS, an effort by the W3C to standardize metadata for filtering
- DansGuardian, a free Internet Proxy web server. Filters web access using updated blacklists and content-based filters.
- SquidCache, and open source cache server used in proxy situations
- SpamAssassin, a free email filtering tool.
- Naomi, free internet content filter
- K9, free internet content filter
- ScrubIT, a free DNS-based filter. Just switch your DNS servers. (Thanks Utah_Dave)
And though it isn’t really an open-source or free effort, solid, loving parenting is the most effective porn filter you can get your hands on these days. I can’t stress that enough. Its what keeps me out of trouble these days.
Please don’t support CP80. Besides being wrong, it won’t work.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm and is filed under Ethics, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi, I found this post from some comments you made on another blog related to CP80.
You might want to check out what I said here:
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/cp-80-and-traffic-control#comment-9732
I think I made a good point:
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, good to see someone else calling these people out.
March 21st @ 1:53 pm@dequeued
If that happened, I’d subscribe to the service, and try to get the government to police my own rules on everyone in the network, even though I joined in after the design phase was done, and even though I’m only one opinion in a sea of values.
Just out of spite.
:)
March 21st @ 3:34 pmYou have to compleatly understand the soulution before you try to break it. The CP80 solution is mostly LAW. The (ICPA) Internet Community Ports Act is very very through, an individual could tunnel ports via a proxy but that would be deamed illegal with the ICPA and also in the ICPA, is asking for ISP’s to record and make avalible IP’s as to When and who. So there would be no hiding, so you create a proxy or port swivle and kids are accesing porn on it, its your butt. ALso the ICPA is suggesting civil as well as criminal penaties. Civil penelits would be extreamly effective in enforcing this policy. As to draw the line… we do it every day inevery form of media except the internet it is not a big deal to make a definition. As to the world soltion CP80 is proposing two ways to deal with that issue. Go to the website www.cp80.org do your homework and understand the soulution compleatly first.
March 22nd @ 8:34 am@ksmias
If the threat of a lawsuit is so effective, then why has it been completely *ineffective* in deal with unsolicited email (spam)?
We are doing it everyday with printed and other broadcast media (i.e. TV and radio), but those systems differ from the internet greatly. Like I’ve explained above, publishing content on the Internet is so much easier and so much harder to trace, that pornographers—and spammers—won’t really be scared of any sort of legal threat.
Because spammers haven’t been stopped by similar legal threats, I don’t think pornographers will either.
Which section(s) in particular did you have in mind?
March 22nd @ 8:46 amJohn john john,
Please go to the website www.cp80.org and do your home work, instead of irresponicbly jumping to conclusions. CP80 does not deal with spam nor has it ever calimed to, probably for the reasons you already mention. Spam is too hard to track. However, Civil penelties worked for the FAX law just fine. And could work for the internet, CP80 is suggesting a similar tac. Give the avrage every day Joe the power to sting an pornographer who has illigally sent them porn or allowed access to his kids…and you will see a shift in accoutablity for thoes who publish porn irresponicbly.
I have read the legislation they are proposing and their forum as well as most of there site. You won’t be able to undestand the compleat solution with a couple of paragraphs. All of the objections you have are answered there several times. I too was sceptical at first but I am now believe this will work. The Forum was very helpfull for me.
March 22nd @ 10:25 amSaudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to
protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. Their views on what should be included in a .sex domain would hardly be identical to those in liberal western nations.
IETF, RFC 3675
Call me crazy, but does the IETF made up of sociologist, doctors and politicians? Why are they even making social policy decisions, aren’t they suppose to be the engineering group dealing primarily with technical issues, not social policy issues.
Is there a group that deals with social policy for the Internet? If not there should be.
March 22nd @ 10:39 amHow is publishing spam on the Internet radically different from publishing porn? Both use servers on the Internet to broadcast information.
If CP80 is meant to legislate the placing of certain content on different ports, does it plan to ignore email-related ports?
Much of spam *is* internet porn, and past that, email is just Internet content being broadcast over a different port.
I’ve searched the forums and the website for passages relating to spam, and it seems the majority of the discussion is people that are very proud about the victory over fax spam, but that’s about it.
The difference between faxes and Internet traffic is much the same between Internet traffic and TV broadcasting.
If if IP addresses were as easy to translate to physical locations as phone numbers (for faxes), we wouldn’t be having this coversaction. Off the cuff, NATs, dynamically assigned IPs, and proxies all cause tracing problems.
Oh, and “Irresponsible” “John John John” will do his “homework” without any extra need for coaxing.
I’ve registered for the forums twice to no avail. I’ve yet to receive a notification for an activated account.
March 22nd @ 10:57 am@GtRL
This is line of thinking is a good example of Ad Hominem. What’s important with what the IETF says is the truth behind the ideas, not the people behind them.
If my two year old comes up with a good idea on Internet social policy, I wouldn’t strike it down purely on the grounds that he’s not a practicing professional.
I wouldn’t mind one, but I wonder if it wouldn’t be more trouble than its worth. The US Supreme court has a hard time defining obscenity, I can’t imagine how hard it would be to define it in the global community.
March 22nd @ 12:17 pmAnyone who thinks CP80 is a good idea is ludicrous, and delusional. I find creationism offensive. Does this mean that, if I’m on the CP80 standards body, I can censor creationism? What about news stories about Britney Spears? I find those offensive too.
From a purely technological perspective, it makes no sense. Parents should step up to the plate and filter client side… not server side. That’s what you’re there for. Not to push ridiculous laws that tread on rights granted to Americans.
March 22nd @ 12:40 pmJohn,
Every form of media is regulated with reguard to material that is innaproriate for minors, execpt the Internet. Are you saying it shouldn’t be regulated or that you don’t think it can be????? What’s your brilliant solution, don’t say you don’t have one. Because we need one, and now. CP80 will work. It won’t be easy but it can work. And to answer your question for the last time as I understand it spam/email ports are not part of the solution.
Joshua,
Are you actually recomending a filter to stop kids from accessing porn? You don’t have kids using the internet obviously. Wake up sleepy head, kids can break filters faster than we can, 11-17 year olds are the largest consumers of internet porn. Filters today are usless. Any solution, must have federal legislation as part of the solution without that all you have created at best is a speed bump.
March 22nd @ 2:38 pmI don’t think it should be regulated like CP80 wants it to be. It’s far too government empowering.
I’m also unsure it can be. If it could, spam wouldn’t be the problem it is today.
Please see my alternative solutions above. I think Australia is on to something, and the parenting idea doesn’t sound too bad.
And I’ve probably said it a bajillion times, but let me say it again: I don’t have to have a better idea in order to realize that this is a bad one.
Blindly following some measure for some noble cause is not a good idea. You have to consider the implications. Just because something is the “best” (which I obviously disagree with), doesn’t mean it is good.
You say CP80 will work, but you are unable to address my concerns. I’m not convinced it will, or should work at this point.
That’s surprising, considering CP80 seems to aim to be a complete solution. A unrestricted set of ports that are commonly used by almost everyone using the Internet seems to make CP80 pointless.
March 22nd @ 2:53 pmOne more thing, if you think CP80’s proposed port-based filtering is some how more effective than content-based filters, I’d like to hear why.
At least content-based filters actually have an idea if the information is offensive or not.
March 22nd @ 3:00 pmJohn,
Come on man, you are making it very difficult for me to be nice. So I will shake my head again, breath and explaine again that, the Cp80 solution and their ICPA is about Federally mandating regulation of Internet pornography. Ports are easy for firewalls to block thats why ports. but I supose it could be meta tags or somthing else, but reguardless it would all have to be Federaly mandated. Ports I suppose feel more sperated than say a tag or somthing. If content based filters worked we would not have the problem we have now and if they worked CP80 and there proposal would not exist.
I bet you will now jump to “what do you do about the rest of the world” or “how do you draw the line” or my favoite “how do you enforce it” Its all been answered before www.cp80.org
March 22nd @ 3:46 pmJust open your mind a little more think about how you would fix this problem. It will work.
To anyone who agrees with CP80,
Learn more about how the Internet works please. When you can describe the difference between TCP, IP and UDP, and can explain the structure of a packet, then you’ll start to see why a legal answer to the problem of pornography will never work.
Porn is a social problem. It can only be dealt with on a social level.
March 22nd @ 4:13 pmYou’ll be careful to notice that I never said content-filters “work.” What I did say, was that they are more effective than port-based filtering.
If some rogue information chances its way onto a “good” port, how will CP80’s port-based filtering intercept that? At the very least, we’ll still need content-based filters on top of anything CP80 might attempt to provide.
This is especially important, because much of the web is live (IRC, IM, video, etc.).
Your wonderful website does not answer my questions. Please stop referring to it unless you are prepared to cite specific passages. If my concerns are so easily dismissed, why have you failed to share those answers with me here?
Statements like “open your mind” and “it will work” aren’t very convincing either.
March 22nd @ 4:46 pmDan,
You don’t understand the solution, The technology is sound, it exists today, I know it will work because it is working right now every day, Firewalls block ports. Try to catch up.
John,
I disagree, a port based filter who is told to block port 10,000 will bock that port 100% of the time. A content filter today is at best 80%, which by rough calculations is tens of millions of porn pages for kids to see. IF rogue porn were to end up on the community ports, through the solution it is now traceable, and open to civil and possibly criminal penalties and furthermore would be coming out of the USA and enforceable. If you don’t understand why I am saying that you don’t yet understand the solution. That being said I feel families and businesses would still want to employ content based filtering for many reasons. The obvious one would be that if the line is drawn at the highest level for “inappropriate for minors” then there would still be much content not appropriate for little ones and content based filtering would be necessary, and smarter.
March 23rd @ 8:59 amI guess I should not be so hard on you as I have been to a presentation of CP80 and have seen the documentary about them http://www.trafficcontrolthemovie.com/ so I probably understand more than most. Cp80 is not my solution or my website I am however, a supporter, they are at least trying to do something, and I am convinced that some if not all of there ideas will help fix this problem. Here are some links you have been requesting.
What if I place one naughty word on an unblocked port? How effective is port-based filtering then? Any concerned parent will *still* be using content filtering, even on “community” ports, because there will always be a risk.
The filtering CP80 might provide is wholly useless, especially as the web becomes more dynamically driven and live. You agree with that yourself. If I have to use current filtering solutions anyway, what’s the point of the easily subverted port filtering?
This blog exists so you can explain it to me. I want to know how CP80 helps track down people who publish information on the Internet anonymously. The most readily available example of that is a spammer.
You have provided no solution, so that might also be why I don’t understand it.
Oh, and please don’t point me to your website again unless you can at least narrow it down to a quote or specific URL. I see no solutions there on my own, so I’m afraid you’ll need to show me exactly where these concerns have been addressed.
Well, I really appreciate your efforts to talk to the uneducated masses, such as myself.
I’m sure that the documentary in question is perfectly absent of bias, even though they advertise for CP80 on their front page, and the domain name was registered by Thinkatomic, a “Solution Contributor.”
Some of the names in that list look familiar. I probably know some of the people in that list.
Besides, the site is devoid of information. I can’t buy anything, the trailer hasn’t even been released. Perhaps you would suggest listening to the soundtrack?
What was I supposed to be looking for here?
Your consistent effort to hide the fact that you can’t answer my questions is becoming painfully obvious. Please feel free to quote passages of the sites in question, or at least narrow your references to within a few pages.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
To illustrate my frustration, I ask you this rhetorically hypothetical and mock favor: Please review http://smallplates.johndavidanderson.net for a full and complete explanation of why CP80 will not work.
March 23rd @ 9:49 am@ksmias
I am a programmer with many, many years of experience in both networking and system administration. I have read all of the CP80 site except for the forums and am familiar with their proposal.
The fact that you compare the CP80 proposal to a firewall demonstrates that you don’t know the details about how a firewall works. A firewall only blocks incoming traffic on closed ports. Web requests, by definition, originate inside of the firewall, and a firewall never blocks traffic that originates behind itself.
You are also demonstrating ignorance regarding the inner workings of TCP/IP. Just because a service is offered on port 80 doesn’t mean that the actual connection will occur on that port. There is a Wikipedia page on TCP/IP. I would post the link here but apparently this blog strips URLs. Please read it and make sure you understand it before continuing this conversation.
One more thing: simply repeating “It will work, it will, it WILL!” isn’t going to change reality. John and I both have many years of experience working directly with the internet. We understand the problem in depth, and we understand CP80’s proposal. It is clear that, while you think you know what you’re talking about, you nevertheless do not. This is a common problem - google “unskilled and unaware of it” to read more.
March 23rd @ 9:54 am@ksmias
I’ve been a freelance security consultant, lead system administrator, and software developer for about 8 years now. I’m pretty sure I have a better idea of the concepts behind internet filters, and the technology behind the internet, than you do. And this proposed solution is nothing short of ridiculous.
But, let’s just get this straight, you’re advocating that the federal government and large organizations do your parenting for you? Right? By changing the complete design of the internet to fit your needs? Because you can’t seem to control your kid?
Sorry, it just doesn’t fly. And it won’t fly. There’s no possible way that CP80 will ever succeed. Sorry for your luck. Take some parenting classes.
March 23rd @ 10:07 amJohn and buddies,
Ok, now I get it. Because you didn’t come up with this solution, it can’t be right. Fine. So Let’s here your brilliant solution, don’t say you don’t have one, becase we need one. Its not about parenting. Who said the internet was for pornographers and thoes who tolorate them. All CP80 is asking for is the same amount of regulation that exists in TV, Print, Music, Movies, DVD, Radio,etc. Give us that and then you can blame the parents. The internet is supposed to be for every one, and right now its not, so I say its broken. CP80 has some of the answers, and it is better that anying else out there that I have seen, because it was designed for choice and for thoes that want the solution, not for thoes that don’t. For thoes that don’t want the solution, it will not change your internet expireince one bit. So relax John and buddies, will still be abel to get all the porn you want.
See ya
March 23rd @ 12:18 pmI’d love to respond to this line of thinking, but I’ve already done it three of four times for you.
I’ve also specified how the Internet is not like TV.
CP80 isn’t about parenting? Porn on the Internet isn’t about parenting?
I feel perfectly alright blaming parents for their children’s behavior, regardless of what legislation exists.
I’d love to respond to this line of thinking, but I’ve already done it three of four times for you.
Do you think we’d be having this conversation if that were actually true?
The idea with Free Speech is that we let bad people talk in order for the good people to be able to talk too.
That’s exactly true. Hopefully people see how flawed CP80 is, not only technically, but also philosophically and legislatively.
March 23rd @ 12:48 pmJohn I have been reading this blog and I don’t see what your problem is. You must have a soft spot for filters, or you must believe in Internet over God, Family and Country. I went to the CP80 site, I am not a technologist, I not an idiot either. It seems to make sense to me. I think the point is, what are you doing about the problem. What IS your answer. I may not be a technologist, but I know filters don’t work. I also know that this problem is bigger than parents, teachers, religious leaders can handle. If you don’t believe me check with your favorite church leader, it won’t matter which one or what religion or group. We need a solution. If you don’t have a real solution of your own, then why are you so down on these CP80 guys. All your arguing sounds like a bunch of intellectual bigotry to me and not really an argument of why Cp80 won’t work. What’s your solution to this problem, you have not yet given a satisfactory answer. Any body can SAY something won’t work, the real value is saying what will.
March 23rd @ 1:18 pm@paul
Oh, wow, that’s a great argument. So, do I believe in Internet over God, Family, and Country, by association? I think if you ask my friends, they’d probably laugh you off, y’know, since I served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you want to throw stones about who’s more patriotic, we can do that all day, trust me.
Here’s my solution though.
How about, you all get together, setup a whitelist proxy, and connect to that for your internet fare? It’s easy! Setup a Linux server, setup squid, write some easy PHP or Python or Perl whitelisting software for said proxy, and publish the IP. Tada! If you can’t do that, then, well, you’re probably not qualified to talk about how the internet works, nor how distribution via said internet is done.
Anyways, if you want to argue technical aspects, we can do that. If you want to argue moral aspects (to include patriotic symbolism, or what America stands for, or what YOUR religion stands for), we can do that too. But don’t come here with some completely, unrelated, biased, opinion, that makes you look like an idiot. I do not play well with trolls.
To finish:
In Soviet America, the Internet Browses YOU!
I’ll even go so far as to say you’re a communist. Or maybe a fascist. Either way, you’re a problem, and should be removed. How’s that for ad hominem?
March 23rd @ 1:34 pmI wouldn’t mind one, but I wonder if it wouldn’t be more trouble than its worth. The US Supreme court has a hard time defining obscenity, I can’t imagine how hard it would be to define it in the global community.
The Supreme Court isn’t having a hard time defining obscenity, because that is up to a community to decide for itself. So if the world could collectively decide on a reasonable standard, you would agree with adopting that standard to the Internet?
March 23rd @ 1:35 pm@ksmias
See above comment for an easy solution. I could go on all day with easy solutions for this problem. Parenting, yea, probably number one. But if you want technical solutions, I can give them to you. If you don’t like the one presented (or, more likely, don’t understand it), I’ll give you one of the four hundred alternate ones that easily come to mind to someone who’s acquainted with HTTP, TCP/IP, routing, and a multitude of other technical aspects that form the internet that we have right now.
March 23rd @ 1:37 pmYou can attack me all you want, but my argument still stands.
I suppose it goes without saying that it doesn’t make sense to me… why does everyone like to reference the web site but refuses to quote from it or link to a specific spot?
Why do you insist that I come up with a better answer? This seems the favorite reply lately. This discussion isn’t about “better ideas” its about CP80.
Is that your way of hiding how flawed it is?
Did I say they do?
I do believe you Paul. I believe that this is a problem. CP80 is not the answer.
Hey I have an idea. We should make a new law in congress that no one is allowed to bash on even the worst of ideas unless they can come up with an alternate almost immediately. I mean, what right do I have, as an American citizen to voice my opinion unless I can come with something better off the cuff?
And if no one comes up with a better idea, let’s all just jump all over the wrong idea and implement it anyway. No amount of concern about a measure is really warranted unless someone has a better idea.
Right.
I don’t know what I’ve done to offend you personally, paul, but starting out with attacking me personally isn’t a really great way to act for your cause.
If you think my words are bigoted, please let me know where I’ve misstepped. I hope they are intellectual. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
March 23rd @ 1:41 pm@GtRL
Miller vs. California is a pretty good shot, but leaves a lot of loopholes open. Rhetoric like “contemporary community standards” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value” seems incomplete to me.
Almost anything gets argued as “artistic” these days.
Realize all this in the light that COPA was ruled unconstitutional in federal court this week. The subject isn’t easily defined.
I have an idea: let me define that for my family!
:)
1. I personally think that particular scenario is impossible. How are China/Saudia Arabia going to find a suitable middle ground with Europe?
2. If we all agreed on a standard, what need is there for legislation? If we can all come to some solution naturally without involving government entanglements, more power to us.
That’s the way to go about it.
March 23rd @ 1:50 pmUh oh John felt theatened and went to Z, a true libritarian. I am assuming af course that you are conservitive at the core…libritaian but conservitive. While you bash Cp80’s leagal approch you are going to have your *** handed to you by people who have no problem making new laws that screw up pur country, and its people in the name of whatever sounds good to meet their agenda. I say why not make some laws that serve children and poeple who beleieve in freedom of speech and freedom from it. You hate new laws more than ideals that run counter to your convitions. Paul peged you, Internet over God and Family and Country.
As to white list. The CP80 solution is trying to do that exact thing. Its the same thing white list black list its academic. Wether you pull out the black or pull out the white you are still left with a white and black group. Same-e-same. But I am sure you, Joshua, were refering to browser based white list, please don’t waste our time. With out a law is not a solution.
Admin edit: (language)
March 23rd @ 3:46 pmI have a feeling that any new law that makes you do any thing, you are against it. Is that right? Well John welcom to the United States of America, and the world for that matter. Laws are created to help people and society. I definitly have problems with smoe laws but even the laws I don’t agree with, I can still appreciate why they were concived, passed and who they serve. And I say again, people who don’t think the way i do have no problem what so ever creating laws that serve them, so why not support and creat laws that serve you and people who think like you. Cp80 is pretty middle of the road in my opinion, in term of its politicl alignment. I could see how each extreem side could have a problem with it. Utra liberals (pornographers) will probably scream censorship even though it isn’t. Utra Conservitives will scream that the law isnt’ strong enought because it allows pornography to exist. CP80 allows for choice and DOES NOT EFFECT THE INTERNET EXPIRIANCE FOR THOES THAT DO NOT WANT THE SOLUTION, but would block the US porn and could block non compliant countries for thoes that dd. How can you have a problem with a standared amount of regulation that exists in all other forms of media except the internet.
March 23rd @ 4:02 pm@ksmias
Now you’re just not making any sense. You’re attacking John personally, and completely ignoring the issues he’s trying to discuss. That’s hardly convincing anyone that your position is defensible. If you can point out specifics about why John is wrong, why don’t you do so instead of attacking him personally?
As for what Joshua said, you are mistaken. Again, your words betray your lack of understanding. You show a consistent lack of understanding and unwillingness to educate yourself. Nevertheless, I will suggest that you do a Google search on “squid proxy” (without the quotes) and read up on how they work. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not a browser based whitelist.
March 23rd @ 4:05 pm@ksmias
Your assumptions and personal attacks do nothing to answer my concerns. Your efforts to put words in my mouth and attack me personally don’t really have any effect on my arguments, or the facts surrounding this issue.
Frankly, your persistent effort to avoid the facts is rather telling about how cogent CP80 really is. It seems you are unable to focus on the facts, so you get angry with me, and decide to focus your efforts on belittling me.
Please stop.
March 23rd @ 4:07 pmHeh. I like how he groups up Ultra Liberals into ‘pornographers’. That’s awesome. Awesomely ridiculous. It’s like an alien called an Ad Hominemite has taken over his brain and gone on a rampage.
I, for one, welcome our Ad Hominemite overlords.
March 26th @ 7:17 ammy last posts were not a personal attack, man you boys bruise easy. Since you were trying to make the technology seem more complicated that it really is I moved on to a different argument. The truth is you have no solution of your own. You have no real argument, just your willingness to put the internet above all. I feel sorry for you.
March 26th @ 8:23 am@ksmias
Didn’t I already publish a very simple, web proxy + white list idea?
The problem doesn’t exist technically (although it’s bad form), really. The problem exists that you’re going to have the federal government deciding what you let your kids see, rather than yourself. And it’s idiocy. What if the federal government decides that kids shouldn’t see information on various religions?
Start parenting. Stop thrusting it onto the government to do for you. Do you just sit your kids in front of the TV all day long, because it’s been censored by the federal government? I sure as hell hope not.
March 26th @ 11:03 amHey guys I have an idea to end hunger in Africa. Everyone just has to eat their own arms and legs. It’s brilliant! The food is already there - attached to their own bodies even - we just have to cut it off and cook it up for them.
What, you don’t like the idea? Oh, well, Mr. Smarty Pants, if you don’t have a better idea, you’re not allowed to say that my idea is dumb.
March 26th @ 11:45 amDan that is exactly my point. you don’t have a better idea.
March 27th @ 2:22 pmBut how about this lets let a bunch of tecnologists and the pornographers they protect deside what our kids should be forced to expirience.
I’ll take US law and Regualtion over none at all or ICANN or a pronogaphers or the lowest common denominator. Its boroken we need to fix it. If its about parenting, then why do we regulate, movies, and radio and music and print. I’m just curious, because that old parenting argument has never held any water with any other form of media.
Please stop saying that unless you can explain to me why someone has to come up with a better idea to know that any given idea is good or bad.
In order to know if its a good idea, do I have to come up with a worse idea?
It doesn’t make sense to say that, so please stop.
Please explain how this force happens. No one is forcing anything on anyone. Do these evil people pay for your Internet access and force something on you?
CP80 is the one doing the forcing.
I think you’ll find that the history of government social policy is less than successful. Welfare. Communism. All had noble aims, as CP80 probably does, but they didn’t work.
I’ll take the freedom to make decisions in my own family, over any government impositions.
You’re right, its as old as civilization. I’m all for regulation, but the terms and conditions CP80 outlines is not correct way to proceed.
March 28th @ 9:57 amGentlemen,
After reading your rationalizations, I don’t understand why you are so polarized? Are you telling us that regulation or any type of control will be efficient on any human strength of mind?
I strongly believe that Internet is the ‘’today’’ part of new technologies and like any powerful tool of nature, has to be managed and accessed properly to get real benefits out of it. And, only a combination of educational-guide tool and parental involvement is still the most effective way to keep our kids safe online…
That’s why we created AxylomClass ® a 2nd generation of Internet parent control software based on an innovative approach without exploiting standard technological filter or censure approaches but with Trust mode of navigation to develop a real parent-child communication.
AxylomClass ® lend a hand as parent to develop and to sustain self-governance, ethical and critical attitudes from yours children electronically connected to the world with a solid control on Internet clutter by creating your private Internet (Virtual Library).
Finally, to give them a reason to push aside all of that clutter and focus on reaching their true potential at home, in school and beyond
March 28th @ 1:38 pmYvon, your approach is closer to ideal: Something that allows everyone to make their own choices.
Your software isn’t free, is it? :)
I think something like this needs to be.
March 28th @ 1:57 pmThe reason you need to have a better idea is, by doing nothing, or nothing and criticizing, and worst before fully understand the solution you are contributing to the problem. So i guess if you have no solution of your own, at least say its (cp80) better than doing nothing at all.
How the force happens…really, you never had a pop-up before, never heard of someone getting a porn popup before. N word please. Besides the very fact that porn is out there and available, is to a minor the same thing. They are looking for it and either don’t know better and/or don’t have the sexually maturity necessary to deal with it (if that’s even possible). If you can’t see that, I’m done here. There is plenty of research on this point (the effeects of porn on children).
Again I’ll take the “history of government social policy” over Anarchy. And anarchy is where we are at with content on the web right now. Are you really comparing, communisium and welfare to the cp80 solution? Come on, its very middle of the road, a child can’t walk into a adult book store and buy porn. I don’t here you complaining about that. CP80 is asking for that amount of social policy on the internet, suddenly is a big deal.
Maybe we are starting to get some ware, we both agree that regulation is necessary to correct the internet porn problem. OK, forget ports for a second, how would you legislate, or at least begin to legislate this problem?
March 28th @ 2:53 pmI think you misunderstood my original question. I’m not asking why its important to work on alternate solutions, I’m asking why I have to do that to know this is a bad idea.
If you feel I don’t “fully” understand something, by all means, clarify.
And being the best isn’t necessarily the same as being good. I won’t support CP80 until I know its good, not just the best.
No, I’ve never heard of anyone forcing people to connect to the Internet and forcing them to browse to sites they are unfamiliar with.
Seems to me that this is a problem that is best addressed by loving parents, rather than some government-appointed official. I don’t disagree that porn hurts our kids.
I will disagree that expecting Uncle Sam to do a better job than myself is a good idea.
Do you mean to say, that if officials knew about (as in, knew where they were physically located) a website that is freely distributing pornography to minors, in the US, they can’t do anything about it today?
Do you mean to say that if someone invites the neighborhood kids over to view Internet filth, they can’t be prosecuted?
I just want to clarify a point: it seems you infer that no laws exist today to prosecute people providing filth to minors. Is that true?
March 28th @ 3:33 pmfamiliar territory
And all this time I thought you didn’t have a solution, but in fact you did. Here it is are you ready. Unplug your internet cable. Why even face the problem, just pretend it doesn’t exist at all. oh ya and loving parents. I am being a bit of a jerk I know, but your suggestion is not fair, but it is your opinion, what I can’t understand is how you would back that ridiculous naive notion and have such a hard time with a little government regulation that exists everywhere else in all aspects of life. Your just a hard core libertarian. I guess the question you should ask your self is is it more imopotant to protect children from porn or is the absoulte unrestricted free internet more important?
John I think you are speaking from ignorance to the issue again… most parents are loving, there have been plenty of loving parents who had children who raped others, killed others, molested others chidren who fell away. Are you saying every kid who ever really screwed up din’t have loving parent? Just answer this, we have porn regulation for all other types of media except the internet, why not the internet.
March 28th @ 4:11 pmDid ksmias REALLY say “N word please” ?
What is this, the CP80 version of the ghetto?
March 29th @ 8:53 amAlso, that ksmias compares kids who were raped, killed, and molested to kids who’ve screwed up, well, there you go. Good job ksmias. You’re a fine parent.
[Borat voice] Nooooot!
March 29th @ 8:56 amMeh.
Given that you’ve completely dodged a very specific and pointed question, I guess I’m done. As fun as it might be to go the rounds - emphasis on circular - I’m not really finding out anything new.
Best of luck with your fight against internet porn. I’ll be standing right next to you, working on a different measure.
March 29th @ 9:27 amThis guy is smarter than the both of you put together.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003738.shtml
But basically he has arrived at a similar CP80 deal from a differnet end.
Oh ya be sure to read the ACLU’s take on this issue it its linked on the page. but I will post it also:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15145pub20020317.html
David I think you will read that the ACLU does want to force porn on you.
March 29th @ 3:59 pmJohn,
A strong and well reasoned article. I’ve written a letter to Rep. Brad Daw, who sponsored HCR 3 and I’d encourage others to do the same.
Rep. Daw can be reached at bdaw@utah.gov.
It may be too late to stop CP80 from embarrassing Utah’s technical community, but at least we can work together to make our objections public.
April 2nd @ 5:35 pmThanks for the info, Michael. I’ll craft that email later tonight.
I’ve been thinking of registering a domain and putting up some FAQs that talk about the problems with CP80. I think too many people are jumping on the bandwagon without understanding the implications of the measure.
April 2nd @ 5:53 pmJohn,
Could you contact me via email to discuss such a site? Thanks.
April 2nd @ 7:50 pmHey John. Just finished reading the comments on this post and I’m curious. Have you set up a website yet? I may be showing my naivity, because to my shame, I have never heard of this, and I don’t even know if it has been passed or dismissed or is still forthcoming. I would love to do something like Michael Place suggested, but I would need to know more details. Would you point me to a website or anything that would help me to voice my opinion? I would love to go check out the much spoken of website, but I can’t because (laugh) my filter won’t allow it on the basis that we have locked “unrated” sites. :)
June 3rd @ 8:56 pmYour thought for the moment: What on earth would a man do with himself if something did not stand in his way? HG Wells.
Seems quite applicable to the conversation. Just what that force ought to be is the question that is left.
It doesn’t seem so hopeless yet, that we ought to give up and let someone else solve the problems in our own homes. But maybe I have hope in things others do not.
Thanks for the conversation, it was enlightening.
[…] (Like lobbying for the government sponsored CP80 Initiative to “protect” people from unintentional exposure to pornography? BTW, here’s a great argument why it won’t work. Oh and just for fun, here’s another one.) […]
October 29th @ 3:08 pm