North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
- From: Rachael Treu
- Date: Tue Mar 22 12:28:33 2005
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy said something to the effect of:
> CNET's extract is wrong.
> The article states
> The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service
> provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed
> on the adult content registry."
Isn't that demanding that an ISP provide, free of
charge, a managed firewall service?
I might be expecting too much, but wouldn't it
stand to reason that link-chasing and downloading
inherently constitute a request *to* receive content?
At the risk of sounding like a proponent for public
indecency <snicker> if Junior or Hubby or Wifey or
whomever is hoarding porn and "must be
protected/stopped/brought back into the fold", I
don't think it's really the responsibility of the
ISP to care.
Note to Utah (tm)*: the pervasion of perversion is
nigh! ;) Buy a firewall and keep an eye on your
kids. Neither the schools nor the ISPs are meant to
*UT is OK with me. The disgruntled ramblings in here
refer only to those whining to the ISPs to save them
from their own Internet connection.
> Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
> Roy Engehausen
> Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> >"Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
> >require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
> >pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
> >and search engines."
> >- ferg
> >"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
> >Engineering Architecture for the Internet
> >email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
k. rachael treu, CISSP email@example.com
..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?..
(this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)