andrew.jorgensen at gmail.com
Mon Feb 12 10:50:27 MST 2007
On 2/12/07, Kenneth Burgener <kenneth at mail1.ttak.org> wrote:
> I am unsure why you think the implementation is bad. If you don't like
> the way they set it up, you have the option to ignore it...
> "A consumer who wants access to websites within non-compliant countries
> will continue to have access to all websites, worldwide. Thus each
> consumer's choice is unrestricted and flexible. "
Really? What about my kids? I would surely want unrestricted access
for the sake of non-compliant countries, etc. but I don't want my kids
(or myself for that matter) accessing adult content.
And how do we decide what's pornographic or not? Medical
dictionaries? Shakespeare? Where do we draw that line?
> I think their setup has similar merits to movie ratings. I know movie
> ratings aren't perfect, but it at least gives you some idea of the type
> of content, which is better than nothing.
Maybe it's better than nothing but not by much. Movie ratings are
part of the marketing. If Hollywood wants a PG audience to buy
tickets they give it a PG rating, likewise with the other ratings. I
don't want to get into a discussion about why that system is broken
but you're going to have much better luck with an independent ratings
site than you will with the MPAA (aka the interested party).
> I also think this benefits more then browsing children. Think about
> office browsing.
Except that it won't and can't work. For one thing there will always
be rogue sites. For another there will always be a way around it.
One simple example is a proxy site, or even just a real web-proxy.
Other examples include tor, or any number of other possible overlay
networks. The only way to actually restrict this kind of thing
effectively is white-listing and that would definitely be a bad thing
Another thing I really dislike about this proposal is that it wants to
use port numbers at a time when port numbers may finally be on their
way out. See http://www.dns-sd.org/
And then there's the line in the resolution that says this:
WHEREAS, credit card verification systems burden credit card
companies, are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain,
and inhibit legal speech;
A couple of comments on that:
"burden credit card companies": Booo hooo ;-( . So charge for the service.
"are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain": And you
don't think this new proposal is going to be expensive and time
consuming to enforce? If this makes it all the way into law it will
cost us billions. Everything the government does costs billions.
"inhibit legal speech": What? How? I'm really failing to see how
this one works.
I am not opposed to finding a way to make it easier for parents and
employers to limit access to pornography but legislating technology is
and never will be the way to do that.
More information about the PLUG