National Ratings For ISPs That Block Porn

[Lee]

As a politically and socially conservative state, Utah has been at the forefront of many attempts to keep objectionable material away from the eyes of children. The latest attempt comes in the form of a bill introduced into the state House of Representatives that would give ISPs who block access to objectionable material the equivalent of a "G" movie rating.

HB 407, introduced by Rep. Michael Morley (R), would designate some ISPs as "Community Conscious Internet Providers" if they meet certain criteria. In order to be certified as a CCIP by the Attorney General's office, an ISP would prohibit its customers by contract from posting pornography or other material that's harmful to minors. Customers of the G-rated ISP would also be prevented from reaching what the bill refers to as "prohibited material."

It sounds innocuous enough, but there are some troubling aspects to the legislation as well. ISPs wanting to get the CCIP designation would have to keep track of IP addresses used by their subscribers for at least two years after they were first allocated. In addition, they would be required to cooperate fully with any law enforcement agency seeking to identify one of their customers. CCIPs would also need to respond to anyone complaining about porn or other objectionable content still accessible via its network.

The program may sound family friendly, but there are serious questions as to whether any ISP would want to go through the hassle of being certified and take on the additional expenses necessary to ensure that its subscribers have a completely smut-free experience. This would involve not only blocking pornographic web sites, but possibly access to P2P applications and USENET, both of which contain their fair share of naughtiness. It sounds like a traffic management nightmare, one that ISPs might not want to be a part of. There's also the matter of facing $10,000 fines each time a naked breast makes it through your filters.

There are also a some legal questions that go hand-in-hand with the CCIP program. Given the poor state of broadband competition in the US, many users are fortunate to have two broadband providers to choose from; some have just one and others none. What happens if the only ISP in town carries a G-rating and you don't want your IP address held onto for two years?

Another bill introduced into the Utah House earlier this month would require anyone operating a WiFi network to verify the ages of its users. Sponsor Rep. Bradley Daw (R) belatedly realized the problems that his bill could cause, but has yet to amend it as it sits in committee. Utah is also the home of nonprofit CP80 (founded by SCO chairman Ralph Yarro), which wants porn pulled off of port 80 so that it can be filtered more easily. Hopefully, the G-rated ISP initiative will remain nothing more than a bad idea.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...e-of-utah.html

This is actually quite good, it will allow people to choose one ISP over another if the ISP does end up blocking porn sites.

What do you folks think, do you see this becoming a national rating system for ISPs?

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

i think it's one thing to let subscribers opt in or out to be able to surf adult material - what they're talking about is an entirely other thing. i object to it not because of what i do but because it's another way to shame companies and users to try and limit our freedoms.

[gaybucks_chip]

If it's an optional feature that individual users can choose to turn off or on, I'm in favor of it... keeps kids away from adult materials.

If it's something that *every* household subscribing to that ISP gets (or more precisely, doesn't get) then I would argue that, to the extent the ISP is a public utility, it might run afoul of the constitution in restricting speech and expression.

[rdynow]

I am all in favor of keeping adult materials away from minors but whatever happened to a parent being a parent? The parent(s) should put filters on the kid’s computer so they don’t have access. Do they not sell adult magazines in Utah? Are they going to out law them? Does Utah and the rest of the US not have real problems to solve?

What’s going to happen when a kid needs access to a site that has adult images, national geographic, etc? Are they going to block that site? Is the ISP going to get fined? It seems to me like big brother wants to rewrite the constitution.

[Squirt]

I am all in favor of keeping adult materials away from minors but whatever happened to a parent being a parent?

This has nothing to do with parents being parents. This is about the religious right trying to impose their beliefs on the majority and disguising it as protecting the children, like they do with 2257.

The religious right is always in search of a new "cause" to keep the sheep following. Gay marriage, child predators, porn on the net, etc. If people aren't afraid then those in power have diminished influence. Nobody in power wants to lose power.

[desslock]

I think that this Utah bill would have a serious constitutionality problem, if passed.

The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. States can't just filter out the interstate business they deem unfair or inappropriate.

Steve

[rdynow]

This has nothing to do with parents being parents. This is about the religious right trying to impose their beliefs on the majority and disguising it as protecting the children, like they do with 2257.

The religious right is always in search of a new "cause" to keep the sheep following. Gay marriage, child predators, porn on the net, etc. If people aren't afraid then those in power have diminished influence. Nobody in power wants to lose power.

In case you couldn't see that was a retorical question. Besides the question still is what happened to responsible parenting?