I agree, but Utah seems hell bent on doing something obtrusive. Since they can’t seem to let it go, that was my next proposal in lieu of abandoning the fruitless endeavor altogether.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 11:43 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Content filtering - Trustwave IMO, completely 100% wrong. You don't get to come into my house or tell a private company that we don't meet your moral standards. The people can make their own damn decisions. Stop trying to legislate morality. The politicians that try this stuff are usually the ones that end up being freaks or porn addicts. Public institutions, schools, libraries, etc. yeah, filter away. That's standard here in KIllinois, too. On 2/8/2018 11:31 AM, Sterling Jacobson wrote: What should really happen law wise, is that the state (Utah in this case) approve a group of content filtering companies for end users. Then mandate AT MOST that the ISP allow/offer at least one of those up to customers as a certified filtering option. Again, not mandatory, but as viable options that are semi-pushed from the ISP side, still for profit. It’s just too much and too variant to have to mandate the ISP do any kind of filtering ‘mid-stream’ style. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:30 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: [AFMUG] Content filtering - Trustwave Unrelated to Chuck's thread, we started talking internally about offering content filtering as a value add. An initial conversation with Trustwave seemed promising, and I'm supposed to have a follow up to discuss tech details later. But does anybody still do this? Is there still consumer interest? How much are/were you selling it for?
