North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites
- From: Nanog Deform
- Date: Fri Mar 04 12:57:25 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=nB6pa9Eg49yhBclDDZxk3W9pIsM8Rd6RnHdXuGbLSiLcELKxPG9otl2evTRz6MYf8Eo4bbM7Du2pPFcbB0aalGaaSOipREdc5m50L8aNepIwF4HsWbc5HbTpnxwBfpXdPZJWqjV2tbdfzs41SPISzvvctfkYT3PmSBSERuZIMzs=
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network
operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay
Joine efnet and #politics if you want to talk about gay people, but
please spare us of the drama.
I would have just ignored this thread if it wasn't disguised as possibly useful.
This is the problem with nanog, its no longer useful or operational.
Most of the contributors to nanog have been wasting their time the
last xxx weeks being girly men arguing about laptops for
I bet the blackhats are having a good time watching you bicker and
fight and not pay attention to the real issues of network operations.
(self appointed moderator)
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:01:38 -0500, William Allen Simpson
> Richard Irving wrote:
> > I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
> > -here-, your account is now _disabled_.
> > You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
> > :P
> > This is another attempt to legislate something that
> > can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
> > After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
> > have worked.
> > * cough *
> > The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
> > in my book.
> > This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
> > in one state, (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
> > that declared same sex couples living together,
> > instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
> > and incarceration.
> > Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
> Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex
> couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine
> from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just
> before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the
> National Association of Manufacturers.
> William Allen Simpson
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32