--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, Utah law _already_ means no links to Planned
Parenthood et alia.
Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah.
Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given
out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff
you're
Well, here's an update:
Utah Internet Porn Law May Face Challenge
By The Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY - Internet service providers that
operate in Utah must offer customers a way to block
porn sites under a law signed this week. ISPs
complained that the law adds nothing to the fight
against
so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was
poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of
service, and we'll see how it plays out.
Right!
Not everyone needs or wants plain old raw Internet
access. That is a commodity service which appealed
to the early adopters who were
1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to how Native
Americans need to be escorted by police in
Massachussetts (i.e. they never got around to fixing
old bad law, but noone cares anymore)
Actually, Indian towns were goverened by Blue Laws up the second half of
the 20th century. Not every law
David Barak wrote:
Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah.
Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given
out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff
you're seeing is either:
1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to ...
Don't know about Utah, but do know about
David Barak wrote:
snip
For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the
people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah,
they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than
the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to,
but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms -
if
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm assuming that you really operate an ISP in Utah.
And that you are
willing to spend some time in jail at various times,
have $10,000 or so
for bail, and a few $100,000 for attorney fees --
none of which you'll
get back even should
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:12:33PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. or vice versa.
Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.
Defending *palatable* speech is unremarkable.
-- me
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:48:00AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
if you prick them, they'll bleed...
What color?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
David Barak wrote:
wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply get a
lawyer and an engineer in the same room and brainstorm
until you came up with something which
pretty-much-worked(tm) and was at least arguably
compliant with the law? There have been a couple of
ideas bandied about on this list
On Tuesday 22 Mar 2005 7:37 pm, Dan Hollis wrote:
somehow I suspect more than just pr0n sites will end up in that 'adult
content registry'. dont be suprised if sites critical of mormonism get
blocked too. they can be as bad as scientologists in this respect.
Cynic. Porn alone will do enough
that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of
children in Utah,
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
their children because the process of filtering takes
place entirely
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Daniel Senie wrote:
Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP addresses for Utah? A week
of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites would, I think, would be
a measured response to idiot legislators. It could be give Utah the Finger
Day or some such.
The
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
their children because the process of filtering takes
place entirely outside the home.
The problem is the state isn't specifying that ISP's
Simon Lyall wrote:
The world has been wait for a list of Florida IPs for a while so we can
block them for a few years, no such luck however.
ip2location.com would be happy to sell you just such a list.
Pete
On a more practical note one possible solution to a similar I heard was
to ensure that
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why other businesses? For example, no drug
companies or pharmacies
can have their businesses in Utah; they sell
contraceptives, and
generate information too sensitive for the tender
eyes of minors.
This is not correct - on network TV in
--- Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP
addresses for Utah? A week
of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites
would, I think, would be
a measured response to idiot legislators. It could
be give Utah the Finger
Day or some such.
Oki all,
Over the holidays I had the opportunity to pick up some pin money experting
for a case involving just this business model and the media ignored sides of
some rather well-known persons who work the church markets in the US.
that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:53:29PM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
It can be called the do nothing account or similar.
Wouldn't that be know nothing?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, pashdown wrote:
In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business.
We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for
our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software
are
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Oh...and then we get into P2P distribution mechanisms. How is any
ISP supposed to block content which is everywhere and nowhere?
This would only be possible by whitelisting content, which is not what
most would accept. (although there are countries where this is the norm,
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, David Barak wrote:
--- Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone want to publish a definitive list of IP
addresses for Utah? A week
of null-routing all such traffic by many web sites
Wouldn't you then be guilty of doing the exact thing
which the
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of
children in Utah,
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
their children
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of
children in Utah,
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
their children because the
to be
'doing something' about internet porn...
-C
On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Paul G wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
They are going to create publicly
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
What is the plan -- if any -- to deal with the hosting of the porn sites
on the computers of the people who they're supposed to be blocked from?
What I'm referring to is the occasional spammer tactic of downloading
web site
David Barak wrote:
This is not correct - on network TV in utah, and on
the family-friendly cableco feed, you can see the
various prophylactic manufacturers' ads.
Remember, this is about minors. I'm no expert on the Utah code,
but a simple search showed:
(1) It's illegal to offer
On March 23, 2005 at 10:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
their children because the process of filtering takes
place
C|Net:
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.
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
- ferg
--
Fergie
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, 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.
:
:
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn
.
:
:
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a
tad?
Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving
- Original Message -
From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected,
and treated, as often as it should
target e-mail providers
: and search engines.
:
:
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
scott
Agreed.
I'm thinking...this *might* (big, fat, bloated, grinning *might
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected,
and treated, as often as it should be.
I always assumed it was working fine and we were
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:55:21AM -0800, John Kinsella said something to the
effect of:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
I consider it proof positive, that our medical system
is in dire need of an overhaul.
Apparently, mental illness isn't being
Ferguson) wrote:
C|Net:
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.
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
- ferg
- Original Message -
From: Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon
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.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the part of the service
(Paul Ferguson) wrote:
C|Net:
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.
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially
they (the ISP) has to do it, huh?
Remember, this _is_ Utah we're atlking about here...
- ferg
-- Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
Engehausen
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
C|Net:
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.
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3
Bill Woodcock wrote:
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.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
wrote:
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At
one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
Taking the assumption that we have all decided that Utah has asked us
to
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:19:40 -0500
From: Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:03:17AM -0800, Roy wrote:
CNET's extract is wrong.
The article states
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service
provider
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the
effect of:
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Brunner-Williams in
Portland Maine writes:
Could someone find out what the actual mandated requirements are? At one
point it sounded a lot like just putting PICs lables on published URLs.
The news.com article links to the bill:
thanks steve. i'm distracted. just got bit by red lake.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Baker Fred wrote:
I am told (not my expertise) that there are labels that can be put on
web pages to prevent search engines from searching them, and that a
certain class of pornographer actually uses such. Keeping them out of
the search engines is a good thing. That
engines.
: :
: :
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top
: :
: Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing.
:
: Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a
tad?
: Hopefully, it has no chance
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Oberman writes:
The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only
that access to a list of sites (addresses?) on a published list be
blocked. A very different beast and a task that is not too onerous. No
more so than SPAM RBLs and bogon
* Steven M. Bellovin:
The news.com article links to the bill:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm
Given that the bill tries to outlaw the distribution of pornography
(which means that it won't withstand judicial review), I think it's
astonishingly ISP-friendly. For
(Apparently I am more movd by the topic of saving porn than I ever
imagined... ;) )
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:39:39AM -0800, Kevin Oberman said something to the
effect of:
..snip snip..
The law does not require that pr0n be blocked on customer request, only
that access to a list of sites
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the
effect of:
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe
- Original Message -
From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database
service of the all the world's porn sites
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 -0600, Kathryn Kessey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain
religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their
parishioners.
Call the filtering program SCOwl...
--
GDB has a
signs Net-porn bill
It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider.
What !?! Surely you Jest!
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Paul G said something to the effect
of:
- Original Message -
From: Kathryn Kessey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
They are going to create
Well, if a customer wants them to filter, essentially
they (the ISP) has to do it, huh?
Providing filtering software at no additional cost is sufficient.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available
database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it
with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right.
Well maybe they're just trying to justify
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:29:09 CST, Kathryn Kessey said:
Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain
religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their
parishioners.
You've got rational, religious, and an implied politics all in the same
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a
database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites
containing material harmful to minors...
...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done
right now. Case in point.
Can ISPs
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
--- snip ---
Regardless of the legal and
technical merits of the plan, requiring a watered down web doesn't seem
on 3/22/05 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
The question is is it required to be affordable?
Yes, we offer a pr0n-free internet access for a service
fee of $9.95/packet.
According to the bill:
(3)(b)(i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider
may not charge a consumer
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Steve Gibbard said something to the
effect of:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
operation of
--- Rachael Treu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
speculative_musing
I'm unclear as to how this level of regulation can
be applied to the
rolling fields of porn and not swiftly expanded to
accommodate other
categories of information deemed to be
objectionable. (I haven't
yet read the complete
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:04:59AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Kathryn Kessey wrote:
They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available
database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it
with up to the minute data... with
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
The news.com article links to the bill:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0260s03.htm
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
That is, in fact, similar to a Pennsylvania law that was struck down by
a Federal court. CDT's analysis of the Utah law is at
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:
How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway?
Any bill with anti-pornography as its title is going to be a freight train
in the Utah legislature. Nobody is going to get in front of it for fear of
being portrayed as pro-pornography.
I
pashdown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:
snip
This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the
Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater.
The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates,
but the
maybe i am slow or jaded, but i am not learning much new from this
rather large thread. yes, politicians grandstand on 'moral' issues.
yes, it is popular to legislate rather than educate 'morals' (thanks
lucy for the reference to
http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=113
The Utah governor's name is Jon Huntsman.
Use the word huntsman as new slang for some sexual act which would
make a dead man blush until people demand that any site using the word
huntsman be blocked.
-Name Withheld By Request
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Owen
--On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:18 AM -0800 Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The measure, SB 260,
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're making sure none of the web servers under your purview
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're
joshua sahala wrote:
On (22/03/05 20:41), Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting all of my Utah customers.
At 08:41 PM 3/22/2005, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Were I running an ISP of which Utah subscribers were not a large portion
of my customer base, I would probably seriously consider simply
disconnecting
all of my Utah customers.
Of course, you're making sure
Bill,
I'll be happy to contact the IT and/or policy people at any or all of the
Tribal Governments who's jurisdictions are surrounded by, or proximal to,
those of the state of Utah.
(a) They could use the business, just like anyone else, and (b) they are
not subject to Utah's state law (and
81 matches
Mail list logo
