New US Link and Domain Law - Page 3

bj · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses. Use whatever legal software and equipment you want. Access any legal site on the internet. That's true Network Neutrality. Not having some giant content providers trying to legislate free bandwidth for themselves while forcing average users to pay for the extra cost.

Um, we are in agreement with the Network Neutrality definition. What we are not in agreement on is what the Telecomms are doing. They wish the end of network neutrality so that they CAN packet sniff and discriminate. That's what this has been about all along. That's what they're planning on doing. They're trying to justify it by saying they're going to use that "fast pipe" to provide cableTV-like services, but once the door is open for packet sniff discrimination they'll just turn the internet into one big TV like entity, with everyone paying for access every which way, and the strong possibility that nobody on the receiving end will get what they wish. If I want to go to joe's pizza website I do not wish my dsl provider to send me to Pizza Hut since PH paid and the neighborhood guy couldn't afford to.

And the Giant Content Providers already PAY for their bandwidth no matter WHAT the Telecomm guys are saying. Google pays. You pay. I pay. Earthlink pays. Covad pays. In fact Tier 3, the backbone monopoly, gets everyone for blood money, when it used to be that the public peering points ran on reciprocal agreements. Bottom line is the telecomms just want us all to pay MORE.

Network Neutrality has been in place since the beginning. Everyone already pays for their bandwidth. The internet is thriving. Why do you think the Telecomm's fix for something that ain't broke is a good idea?

Keep in mind that we've ALREADY PAID for them to build the fiber network to the home. Do you have fiber to the home? I don't.

Chris · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 04:08 PM

some of you guys are entirely too black or white for discussions like this. DrTandem, no i do not think every adult site out there is trying "lure" kids... in fact, i remember from my childhood (before i was 18) trying to sneak peeks at any playboys or penthouses lying around. were those publications trying to lure me into a sordid pedophile ring (i think not)? or was it the person's fault who left the mag laying around where a young teen could get ahold of it (same as a parent that won't take the time to introduce filters and passwords into their children's internet use).

did you ever think that some of these under 18 year olds were trying to sneak a peek themselves by using the internet instead of dirty magazines? or are you still saying the only reason a kid (and yes, teenagers, especially those under 18, are still kids) goes to a porn site is because they were lured and not for the visual stimulation these sites offer ? most pedophilia internet offenses seem to iniate from forums and chat rooms anyways. the sites used by the scum pedophiles are usually private as it is.

the problem is you have internet illiterates trying to settle the biggest technological frontier in ages. and they are failing miserably at it. with that in mind, yes, warning pages for LEGITIMATE sites is all that should be required. going after internet pedophiles with standards that don't even address their methods of attracting victims is pathetic.

DrTandem1 · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

some of you guys are entirely too black or white for discussions like this. DrTandem, no i do not think every adult site out there is trying "lure" kids... in fact, i remember from my childhood (before i was 18) trying to sneak peeks at any playboys or penthouses lying around. were those publications trying to lure me into a sordid pedophile ring (i think not)? or was it the person's fault who left the mag laying around where a young teen could get ahold of it (same as a parent that won't take the time to introduce filters and passwords into their children's internet use).

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

the problem is you have internet illiterates trying to settle the biggest technological frontier in ages. and they are failing miserably at it. with that in mind, yes, warning pages for LEGITIMATE sites is all that should be required. going after internet pedophiles with standards that don't even address their methods of attracting victims is pathetic.

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

DrTandem1 · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Quote:

Pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses. Use whatever legal software and equipment you want. Access any legal site on the internet. That's true Network Neutrality. Not having some giant content providers trying to legislate free bandwidth for themselves while forcing average users to pay for the extra cost.

Um, we are in agreement with the Network Neutrality definition. What we are not in agreement on is what the Telecomms are doing. They wish the end of network neutrality so that they CAN packet sniff and discriminate. That's what this has been about all along. That's what they're planning on doing. They're trying to justify it by saying they're going to use that "fast pipe" to provide cableTV-like services, but once the door is open for packet sniff discrimination they'll just turn the internet into one big TV like entity, with everyone paying for access every which way, and the strong possibility that nobody on the receiving end will get what they wish. If I want to go to joe's pizza website I do not wish my dsl provider to send me to Pizza Hut since PH paid and the neighborhood guy couldn't afford to.

And the Giant Content Providers already PAY for their bandwidth no matter WHAT the Telecomm guys are saying. Google pays. You pay. I pay. Earthlink pays. Covad pays. In fact Tier 3, the backbone monopoly, gets everyone for blood money, when it used to be that the public peering points ran on reciprocal agreements. Bottom line is the telecomms just want us all to pay MORE.

Network Neutrality has been in place since the beginning. Everyone already pays for their bandwidth. The internet is thriving. Why do you think the Telecomm's fix for something that ain't broke is a good idea?

Keep in mind that we've ALREADY PAID for them to build the fiber network to the home. Do you have fiber to the home? I don't.

Your argument, telcos want you to pay more, would be more convincing, if the telcos hadn't lowered prices to consumers to below the cost of dial-up in many areas.

As far as IPTV (if that's to what you are alluding), its their (telco's) product and on their own network. They don't have to charge themselves for that. If that was really the issue, don't you think the cable companies would be fighting the telcos too?

Maybe you want to pay for 500 cable TV channels and only watch seven of them. Personally, I'll be paying ala carte when it's available and saving a ton of money.

Don't worry, the competition with cable TV will ultimately cause your cable rates to decrease dramatically, as did long distance.

Also, if what you say is true, how does Vonage stay in business?

Competition is the key, not socialism. Don't just jump on a cool-sounding bandwagon. Think. If you won't think, "do it for the children."

bj · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Competition is the key, not socialism.

This is where your argument completely falls apart. There is no competition because Telecomms and Cable Companies are protected by Government Regulation and Consumers don't have choices.

Oh, and I don't buy cable. I could not care less what's on TV or how many channels you or anyone else has. And I don't think I should have to pay more for my broadband so you can watch more TV. And I and everyone else WILL pay more if the Telecomms and Cable Companies have anything to do with it.

DrTandem1 · #**106** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Quote:

Competition is the key, not socialism.

This is where your argument completely falls apart. There is no competition because Telecomms and Cable Companies are protected by Government Regulation and Consumers don't have choices.

Oh, and I don't buy cable. I could not care less what's on TV or how many channels you or anyone else has. And I don't think I should have to pay more for my broadband so you can watch more TV. And I and everyone else WILL pay more if the Telecomms and Cable Companies have anything to do with it.

More obfuscation. The US is far larger and its population more widely dispersed than its densley populated cousins. Alos, the telecom industry in the US is not owned by the government. Nice try.

begabloomers · #**107** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 10:28 AM

Posted this on another related thread but feel it is pertinent to any discusion about "rights" "morals" "protecting children".

Children do need to be protected Tubby but when did we decide that the "gubberman" ( to use a a negative indigenous australian expression for the government - just ask THEM how the gubberman protected their children )take the role of parent?

They may be "society's children" but we all know how children brought up by the state in the past have fared. There is no substitute for parental control. But even John Howard isn't going to tackle this one head on, which is why the govt. took the easy option of providing every household with children in Oz with free internet filter services/software. Schools provide lesson in safe computer use to children, educating parents is also needed not just heavy handed open ended legislation.

How Draconian, child abusers only get a few years and state sanctioned violence is condoned, in fact it is extremely big business, but heaven help a lonely consenting adult.

I will read the topic thread but as a parent and an adult I find violence, in movies, on TV and especially real life far more obscene than any sexual act ( excluding violent acts - because of the VIOLENCE).

As you no doubt can tell its getting very late at night over here and I have had a gut full (Australian coloquialism) of the carnage we are seeing every day on TV and the lack of political will to stop it - but a few right wing religious nuts can wield great power over things that by comparison do not matter and are not their business.
And if ASIO and the CIA are going to archive this post well they can damn well give me a back link for it.

By the way what's different about Methodist marriages? Last time I looked the Methodists were extremely conservative? Or have I missed the point. And to add my last rant, if we had gone to a referendum on gay marriage I would have voted Yes.

Chris · #**108** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

as may you want to pay attention to what you write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Well, your solution, a safe page, has failed. They are not only not doing that, but they are actively pursuing children.

now, if you are talking about pedophiles, then yes, that's the nature of that sickness. but it also reads much like porn in general is actively pursuing kids. again i iterate that pedophiles aren't known for using a known domain, even if it is redirected, to lure children. this is still done in the chatrooms and forums (AND MYSPACE). besides, unless you have an active live chat on your site, what good does it do if a child just visits? are you going to ask him to sign up for a newsletter in order to keep track of him/her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

i never said the site was being banned, just that this law, like most every other one the US government has drafted for the Internet is completely and arachiacly behind and so full of holes that it won't so much as slow the pedophile process, let alone stop it.

and who's to say the redirect or jump link was designed to attract children? because of the domain name? so now your domain name MUST match your content? hardly. if domain names are the problems, then another, probabaly much more effective fix would be to require all legitmate US porn sites use the .xxx suffix... ah but then, what do you do when the site originates from a foriegn country?

much like the dyke getting ready to burst, there are a great many holes that need plugging to effectively combat pedophiles and the net rings they use... but if you think this redirect edict is actually going to help in anyway shape or form, i can only say i hope you are right.

DrTandem1 · #**109** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Your selection of a quote of mine is taken out of context. "They" in this case referred to those that are using deceptive URLs and/or links, not all purveyors of porn. As the topic was regarding a law prohibiting deceptive links and URLs that portend to be children sites, but actually lead to porn, not a law against all links to porn.

Your thoughts on law are novel. In other words, you don't think there should be laws unless they can be enforced 100% of the time. Many times it is the seemingly insignificant violation that leads to the larger crime. It can also increase the consequences, just as using a gun in the commission of a crime increases the penalty.

Also, you seem to think that simply because one does not understand the technology, they are incapable of writing a law that restricts certain behavior. There are probably an unlimited number of ways to murder someone. A lawmaker does not need to know all the mechanics of how a person can be murdered to write a law making the end result illegal.

We still need laws that establish limits. Without such limits, whether or not they are enforced 100%, we will not have a society, we would have anarchy.

Lastly, the law did not say that the link nor the URL must match the content. It said that is must not be a link that a child would assume is for them. In fact, the law made it very clear that words that were sexually explicit would not be covered by this law.

For instance, if it is SexToys.com leading to porn, this law does not ban it. If it is Toys.com and leads to porn, then it would be in violation. If it said AutoParts.com, and led to porn, again no problem.

If it was anchor text or an image that had connotations of being for children, regardless of the actual URL, and it leads to porn, it would be in violation, assuming that these were found on a site where children could be reasonably likely to visit.

I really don't find this oppressive nor unreasonable. Again, I think it's the messenger, not the message. If it had come from Nancy Pelosi saying do it for the children, I doubt the same people would be challenging this law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

as may you want to pay attention to what you write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Well, your solution, a safe page, has failed. They are not only not doing that, but they are actively pursuing children.

now, if you are talking about pedophiles, then yes, that's the nature of that sickness. but it also reads much like porn in general is actively pursuing kids. again i iterate that pedophiles aren't known for using a known domain, even if it is redirected, to lure children. this is still done in the chatrooms and forums (AND MYSPACE). besides, unless you have an active live chat on your site, what good does it do if a child just visits? are you going to ask him to sign up for a newsletter in order to keep track of him/her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

i never said the site was being banned, just that this law, like most every other one the US government has drafted for the Internet is completely and arachiacly behind and so full of holes that it won't so much as slow the pedophile process, let alone stop it.

and who's to say the redirect or jump link was designed to attract children? because of the domain name? so now your domain name MUST match your content? hardly. if domain names are the problems, then another, probabaly much more effective fix would be to require all legitmate US porn sites use the .xxx suffix... ah but then, what do you do when the site originates from a foriegn country?

much like the dyke getting ready to burst, there are a great many holes that need plugging to effectively combat pedophiles and the net rings they use... but if you think this redirect edict is actually going to help in anyway shape or form, i can only say i hope you are right.

Chris · #**110** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 04:10 PM

so now the idea is the have the content match the domain? that's pretty impossible when you consider just how many domains have nada to do with their content. yahoo.com, anyone? ahh, i get you. only punish the porn purveyors who may or may not be trying to "lure kids". that sounds a little discriminatory.

and no, i will not support a law that is little more than grandstanding for the press and soccer mom voters (who, once they hear about something like this, will assume junior is safe to play on the internet again), especially when it will do nothing to stop the intended target, the pedophiles.

greeneagle · #**111** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

"and no, i will not support a law that is little more than grandstanding for the press and soccer mom voters""

WOW! - That's a mouthful:)

And on "Net Neutrality":

My wife "armchairvet" became a telecommuter for a big telecom company in Houston a few months ago...

They are being forced to reduce costs at every level including sending faithful employees home to work, cutting high priced office space rental.

Between that and Mountain Eagle Marketing we run 2 businesses out of 2 rooms nearly 24hrs/day.

This is the trend in business these days, and IMO - It's way past time we cut down unnecessary hydrocarbon consumption and learned how to become more competitive on a Global basis, business wise, as a culture and as a society.

We give up quite a bit of living space with 3-5 computers on 24-7, phones, wires and wireless networks everywhere you turn. You become your own IT, you pay for the office space and in return they get more dedicated time without the commute and free office space.

When played well, that whole game is better at every level;, personal, business, social and cultural, and even spiritual.

Unlike BJ, we do not have cable or fiber available out here. The best we can do when we want to grovel before the tube after 12-15hr days each is rely on an old mechanical antenna on a 25ft pole outdoors or go with satellite TV, which is unreliable also. We chose option #1.

We do live within a quarter mile of the local switching station and knock down on DSL HARD, day and night.

We already pay $80/month for DSL and home phone, and $80+/month on 2 cell phones. Yeah we burn up DSL and have dial-up as backup. Communications are around $200/month, said and done without the garbage tube included. I am not willing to pay more than that for those limited communications.

As far as the perv's, go they are getting busted right and left with all kinds of stings going on at all levels of local GOV. The FEDs and Local governments run all over each other all the time.

The FED seems out of control, they need to back off from what is better handled by local experts, including businesses members in the free enterprise system and local authorities they empower, and focus on cutting their own budgets instead of slowing the economy with multiple interest rate hikes! Marching on, with antiquated formulas based on traditional inflation indicators severely skews reality in times of exceptions such as the recent gas hikes that have reverberations at all levels of the economy.

I am not willing to pay another cent for communications right now in light of what we have all had to bear in the increased prices across every single consumer sector, including food, for transportation! It is at it's market value, they are working it out.

Every single previous empire including Greece ...Roman Empire? Hey my fellow Englander's, what happened?... I have driven on the "wrong" side of the road in Asia Pacific... What happened there? (No Offense Intended)

What happened to all the "big picture" thinkers? Where did they all go?

That's my Rant here.

Ken

greeneagle · #**112** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

"What happened to all the "big picture" thinkers? Where did they all go?"

They all walked out of "Dr. DoGreens" little factory in perfect synchronous motion, following each other off the cliff, without looking back.

That would be a scenario based on the business psychological phenomenen referred to as "group think".

LOL - History does repeat itself, doesn't it?

Ken

greeneagle · #**113** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 09:33 PM

I honestly didn't intend to crush this thread!

If I had really gotten into history, cultures and pedophiles, WPW would probably have been as badly hacked as this Directory Site by now:

http://www.searchpurple.com/

Make sure and turn up the sound and listen all the way thru!

There are English translations also.

Ken

MikeinFlorida · #**114** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 10:20 PM

Sure the intent of the law is great! But isn't it about time people realize you can not make a law for everything. The internet is still in it's Wild, Wild West Days and it will be for many years. There are all sorts of kooks in this world! That's not news. What's really amazing here is that Congress really thinks it can make a new law to control the World Wide Web at all. It's World Wide just not in the US.

greeneagle · #**115** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 12:49 AM

Looks like they are in the process of recovering from that hack.
LOL
Ken

I had no intention of hijacking this thread and still don't...The fact remains though that "The Free World" is and has always been more concerned about this issue... and subsequently paid more due diligence in it's administration!

On the other hand though... Should they have prosecuted my father-in-law for taking my-mother-in-law at the tender age of 14 as his wife? There is a 5-6 year age difference there. That would have been prosecutable now under our current law in most states!

They have been happily married now for over 50 years. Mine didn't make it that far, did yours?

Watch the pendulum of public opinion swing and then cast your own independent vote!

Is that possible?

Let's be careful for what we judge and how we judge it. I am damned glad that I was fortunate enough to have found the beautiful, intelligent, loving, caring wife/partner/friend that I found from what would be judged as an illicit or ill-begotten relationship these days. Thank God, Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet back then!

I haven't read the law verbatim, and don't care to. If they wanted to put any real bite in it though, they would have attached appropriated funding at the State Level for the Sting operations already in process and those that are planned. Did they? That might be a "dividing line" whether it was politically motivated or "real". It doesn't take a fricking "witching stick" to understand that, does it? Surely this is a more culturally important issue than bovine flatulence studies and it's effect on the environment... Don't you think?

I apologize for running all over this thread, if it is perceived that way and welcome any comments.

Ken

DrTandem1 · #**116** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 09:10 AM

Ken, you didn't crush this thread. The arguments against this law lacked substance. Their actual agenda has nothing to do with it.

Simply stated, this law pertained only to porn sites. It wasn't banning nor censoring the sites or their content. Like the tobacco industries "Joe Camel," the porn sites have used children-attracting links and URLs that hid the