Daniel C. dcrookston at gmail.com
Mon Feb 12 10:40:44 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...

It assumes that pornographers will comply.

It creates a government body that attempts to oversee the internet.

It assumes that an acceptable definition of "pornography" can actually
be established.  (See the Supreme Court discussion of the same issue.)

It gives a false sense of security.

It moves responsibility for overseeing your child's activities to the
government, and away from parents.

Finally, it seems like a messy solution, which is more of a "taste"
argument than anything else.  Doing something like this annoys the
geek in me.  HTTP traffic goes on port 80.  Ports are broken up by
services, not by the traffic that the service brings to you.  We don't
require emails of various natures to be carried over different ports.

There are tools available to filter net content.  They're not perfect,
but they exist and can be used by anyone who wants them.  Most
importantly, they don't require government legislation to work

For what it's worth, I asked my fifteen year old sister (who exists in
actuality, as opposed to the platonic FYOS of ufie fame) whether she
ever accidentally stumbles upon porn while browsing the web.  She said
it's never been a problem.  And she is online practically all day


More information about the PLUG mailing list