+2 Moral issues entirely aside, the business risk in making yourself no longer a neutral carrier of information,but something that has a "clean" internet service, is too high. Just wait until some religious zealot sues you because their 12 year old discovered a certain video of a boeing engineer and a horse.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. > > Agree. > > This is a rat hole with no bottom. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 2/6/2018 6:14 PM, George Skorup wrote: > > We're a dumb pipe, not the police, get off my lawn. How about you let > people live their lives and make their own decisions. > > On 2/6/2018 11:07 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Based on all your comments (thank you), I sent the following to the > legislative working group: > (You guys helped me look smarter than I am ). > � > � > � > Some random thoughts. > � > If you are going to an HTTPS site, it is all encrypted.� If you are > attempting to analyze a flow of traffic HTTPS traffic looks the same to us > whether it is porn or online banking.� > � > Do we also block Bit Torrent? > XBox Grand Theft Auto > Any game with online chat.� Scrub online chat during games? > All game servers > Twitter > Instagram > Youtube > News outlets > Facebook > Email > Instant messaging > Periscope > Streaming > FTP > IRC > � > The lowly ping facility has a space for payload.� I could send porn via > pings if I wanted.� > � > What is defined as harmful content?� Medical, artistic, Bible > readings?� Genesis 19, 29 etc etc.� > Language, if so what language?� Bare shoulders. Knees? > Curtains blowing in the breeze. > � > How about what I consider pornographic music lyrics.� > Do we have to police music.� Police Pandora.� > � > There are always ways around. > For every block there is a proxy or VPN that will get you around it. > � > Filters can give parents a false sense of security.� Filters are > gimmicks.� Snake oil.� > But we do offer them.� Not home grown.� They are 3rd party.� > � > > > >
