CP80

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Mon Feb 12 09:24:51 MST 2007


On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 15:20 -0700, Daniel C. wrote:
> I just heard about CP80, which you can read about at cp80.org.
> They're proposing legislation to require ISPs to only route "clean"
> traffic through port 80 (the "Community Port"), and to route "adult"
> content through other ports (the "Open Port").  You can read about the
> technical details here:
> 
> http://www.cp80.org/content/solutions/community-ports
> 
> It *almost* sounds like it would work, but:
> 
> "The appropriate Internet governing body would establish policies for
> content-specific ports, making it illegal for content deemed
> "inappropriate for minors" to be routed via the Community Ports.
> Publishers of mature content would have to sanitize their Community
> Port presence and use the Open Port ranges to publish adult content."
> 
> Since any Thinking Human Being* would agree that passing this
> legislation would be a Bad Thing, I'll skip over that discussion and
> just ask - would anyone be willing to help me mobilize opposition to
> the bill being proposed?

Is this a federal thing or a state thing?

I think ideas like this are not necessarily bad, but the implementation
can't possibly be anything but bad.  I'd rather be empowered, as a
parent or administrator of a private network, to set my own policies and
filters.  And turning over port number assignments to some moral
government agency seems like a nightmare.  I'm sorry dave, you're not
old enough to access port 22.  We don't want you tunneling bad stuff
through an ssh channel.

Michael


> 
> Dan
> 
> *Anyone who agrees with me
> 
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
> 




More information about the PLUG mailing list