No Porn On Port 80?
from the yeah,-good-luck-with-that dept
A Utah business man apparently believes he's come up with a solution for the issue of blocking online porn. He basically wants legislation that would say all porn needs to go through a different port, rather than the standard port 80 for regular web traffic. With that in place, it would be easy (they say) to block out any porn, because you could just create a filter system that would only allow traffic over port 80. Voila. No more porn. Except... this "outside-the-box" solution seems so far outside the box that it forgot to check back in with reality. The problem with filtering out porn isn't a better way to classify it. If that were the case, then we'd already have laws forcing all porn into a special .xxx redlight district -- which would basically solve the same problem. The problem is defining what is and what isn't porn. As we've seen from various attempts at software filters, this isn't easy at all. Many filters are way too aggressive, blocking out lots of stuff that most people consider perfectly safe. Forcing all that content off of port 80 doesn't help anyone. This "think tank" that came up with it is solving the wrong problem. No one has a problem putting in place a filtering solution, whether by URL, TLD or port. The problem is that "porn" is a subjective measure and you can't just wall it off.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re: RFC 3514 - The Security Flag in the IPv4 Heade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RFC 3514 - The Security Flag in the IPv4 Heade
-Mike S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty Tricks
So, how can better parenting fix the problem where their child is trying to search for historical information on lets say Germany for a report they have to do for school on Germany and they end up on pages about Germany that have those pop-ups or banners.
Other than that you are all right. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Tricks
I'm curious how common this is. I can't recall ever coming across porn accidentally online, though I hear about it all the time. Still, I spend an awful lot of time online, and yet I don't seem to accidentally see porn. Am I blocking it out? Or have I just been lucky?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty Tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Tricks
Stop using IE...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Tricks
The big search sites don't want to deliver porn to you unless you are specifically looking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RFC 3514 - The Security Flag in the IPv4 Heade
The question remains the same.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psha right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psha right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pr0n
Kids need supervision (called parenting), and filters or software shouldnt be a substitution for that.
and if your not a kid, then what right is there for filtering anything? It's easy enough to avoid porn if your offended by it personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US only ruling
All this'll do is increase the porn industry outside the US as they won't be prohibited by any US rules from using port 80.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
This coming from the guy who spelled grammar wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Violence is sick, sex is as natural as sleep or eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Cares
Trying to stop something on the internet is like trying to keep drugs off the streets... it isn't going to happen.
If you don't want it at work, fire anyone caught using it. If you don't want it at home, don't let the kids surf the internet. If you don't like your significant other doing it, you are insane.
No porn on port 80 is the dumbest thing since Sony loading root kits on computers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Cares
Ok, that was like yesterday. Sooo..not a the best analogy, but maybe your point is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I agree, this wont fix anything. To me it's about free speech. I personally would rather it not be out there. Not only is offending to me, I don't want it corrupting minds at too young of age. Fact is though, the internet is the home of the next generations. And the other fact is, if you want to find porn... you will. If you don't, you wont. Now that comes with conditions, like you have to be savvy enough to not be infected with spyware/adware and use IE, and you have to browse the web smartly. Google by default is set to safe search in images, but that wont matter if you search for "boobies"...
(4,000 geek's reading this simultaneously put it to the test....)
But what I am saying is, yes I agree we need to take measures to stop it being blatantly shoved in our face, but Lord I hope they don't start censoring the internet. When they start blocking sites based on "someone's" classification of porn, it opens the door to the closing of religious, governmental and ethnic freedom as well. I want freedom of speech and expresion, dangit!!! You can have your porn, I'll take a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cp80
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
AND it is already being done by the movie industry (R), televsion (TV-MA), music industry (Parental Advisory), and video games (M and A).
So drawing the line is easy. Creating the ports are easy. Drafting the laws are a bit more tricky, but are not impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Um. There's quite a bit that's different between those *broadcast* style committees that can reasonably review all content, and the internet where anyone can create content. So, yeah, I'd say it's a lot more difficult than you seem to think it is.
So drawing the line is easy. Creating the ports are easy. Drafting the laws are a bit more tricky, but are not impossible.
But you haven't answered "why ports?" If it's so "easy" to figure out what's indecent, then how come you can't just use filters? Doesn't that solve the same problem in a much simpler fashion?
The problem isn't the technology, but defining indecency on a global network where anyone can create content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xvideo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xvideo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]