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.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops
- Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
- Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
- German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community