Comments on: TRAFFIC CONTROL

By: Lisa

Lisa — Wed, 30 May 2007 03:25:02 +0000

You GO Robert!!! I welcome cp80’s solution, it is worth the try. Especially in this day in age where the schools are pushing it on the parents to let our kids on the internet. I personally do not like my kids on here, with cp80’s solution I would definately consider letting them on here. Right now it is a big fat no, on the internet and my kids, except for at school (against my better judgement mind you) and wherever he can sneak it, I am sure.

Robert, I do not agree with calling mp a bigot, sorry, but he should be entitled to his opinion and thoughts on the solution without being called names. If you must call names wouldn’t it be better to state it as your opinion?

mp, you said “Does CP80 address the problem of dangerous Internet predators?”
I am not sure it does or can, How do you stop an internet predator if you don’t know who they are. you have to catch them to know that they are a predator right?

Robert you also said “but under the solution would be illegal to operate a port swiveling site or proxy that allows Adult port access to Community port users.” I also welcome making it illegal for the adult port to creep into the community port.

People need to look around, look at what our society is teaching the next generation, I see the adult industry taking over and trying to convert our children, look at the TV commercials look at what they are allowing in pg-13 movies(nudity), it isn’t just the internet you need to worry about, society is letting the nastiness(in my opinion it is nastiness) take over.

Lisa

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 29 May 2007 15:41:17 +0000

mp, you are so wrong, the cp80 solution, thought not perfect, is the best attempt at starting to fix this problem out there. You are only reading and hearing what you want to about the solution, because you don’t want anyone to touch your precious Internet. Garry has you pegged you guys are Internet over all. The Cp80 solution is fair and technically sound, It does require some changes and IT DOES NOT PUT THE RESPONCIBLITY ON THE ISP’S, it only asks them to keep records of who and when, which they do now anyway. You really show your technical ignorance by touting filters which we all know don’t work. The CP80 solution is lightyears more effective, and politically netral compared to COPA. CP80 can be broken in the same ways a filter can be broken, but under the solution would be illegal to operate a port swiveling site or proxy that allows Adult port access to Community port users. You won’t ever support it because you are an intellectual bigot and don’t want your precious internet touched, relax you will still be able to go blind on porn even with the CP80 slolution.

By: mp

mp — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:56:36 +0000

Garry,

I’ve read the website multiple times and talked to several members of CP80. Your claims are, quite simply, false.

* “For those who like porn the Cp80 solution will not change your internet experience one bit.”

Really? Ralph Yarro of CP80 came under fire for proposing that part of the CP80 “solution” consist of a ban on open and unfiltered wireless networks, since they might be used by children to access pornography. As a person who frequently accesses the Internet on open wireless networks, I’d say that having them shut down would change my experience more than “one bit”. What about people who depend on open proxy networks which would be shut down? Their experience is changed. What about people who host sites on VPS’ which would be shutdown under the CP80 proposal?

That’s just the beginning. Let’s turn the tables and ask CP80 the same question. Will CP80 protect you against pornographic spam? What about spyware and pornographic popups which are the cause of most accidental exposures to pornography? Will CP80 give you enough security that you would allow your child to surf the Internet without a parent present? Does CP80 address the problem of dangerous Internet predators?

CP80 supporters always seem to go missing when those questions are raised…

* TV, Movies, Music, radio, news, periodicals ect, the internet is the only un-regulated media.

False. The Internet is regulated for all sorts of things. (Think: spam, fraud, crime, child porn, network abuse, domestic wiretapping)

The Internet is a global network and CP80 has serious implications for its health. To the best of my knowledge, not a single person at CP80 has ever answered difficult questions about how they plan to handle a large variety of technical issues, apart from the social issues that I raised above. (If you want their last attempt at addressing technical problems, feel free to check out Matthew Yarro’s failure to keep up with Jacques on simple technical objections, over on his blog: http://jricher.jricher.com/wordpress/2007/04/25/content-filtering-a-revisit/)

Moreover, your claim that opponents to CP80 believe in the “internet-above-all-else” is also false, not to mention fairly thoughtless. It paints people who believe in sensible solutions as radicals, which just isn’t the case. People from Harvard Law (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/04/04/sandwich-meat-or-how-not-to-protect-kids-from-porn/) to ISP owners (http://peteashdown.org/media/articles/cityweekly20050324/) have come out the proposal. The only red herring here, sir, is your attempt to paint detractors as “ignorant”.

Look, CP80 _itself_ operates on an enormous red herring — the idea that tools don’t exist today which can provide a reasonable measure of protection for those who wish to use them. Judges have ruled that way (see: most recent COPA decision). CP80 can be defeated technically in the SAME WAYS that existing filters can be defeated. What we’re talking about is a reasonable measure of protection that can be used in conjunction with good parenting. There is no perfect solution out there, but there are tools that can help that are already available. Building a tool that’s just as ineffective as existing ones but also causes considerable damage is a poor solution that I can’t support.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 17 May 2007 21:40:23 +0000

Think about guns. Sometimes guns are used for good, sometimes they are harmful, right? The ATF is a HUGE organization in which we pay a lot of money to fund, and it’s all to regulate something that can be harmful, yet is our right to have and use. I’m sure at some point, people thought it would be totally impossible to regulate guns and gun use, but we did it. We had to.
Internet porn is the same issue. For some people it’s fine, for kids it’s definitely not. So let’s get over the “it’s too hard, it’s too technical, where would we draw the line” rhetoric and tackle this. Yes, it’s going to be hard. Yes, it’s going to cost a lot of money. But the alternative is that we create an entire generation of kids who will soon be messed up adults. We gotta do something.

By: Jed

Jed — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:30:46 +0000

Paul, in case you where not aware thee cp80 website is found here http://www.cp80.org I have looked this over and feel it would be a great help to the exsiting problem we are facing. I don’t know to much about the film but it does look interesting!

By: garry

garry — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:23:43 +0000

Oh no its the “internet over all” Gestapo. Ports will work, firewalls block ports every day, I know this solution will work because technically, it is working right now every day. Who draws the line? We draw the line every day in every from of media on the planet, TV, Movies, Music, radio, news, periodicals ect, the internet is the only un-regulated media. Drawing a line is not that hard, especially for adult content. I guess the CP80 folks were trying to simplify the Internet with the “channels” parallel for the average parent, instead of over complicating it (as you are suggesting). This problem is not a “red herring” and that suggestion only shows your ignorance to the dangers children are facing, and the real statistics behind this health emergency. If you don’t think this is a problem you won’t get the solution. The Cp80 solution is built for those that want to get away from porn. For those who like porn the Cp80 solution will not change your internet experience one bit. Go back to the website and actually read it, particularly the forums all your concerns have been answered there several times in several ways.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:39:46 +0000

i have read through the CP80 proposal and it makes no practical or technical sense. First off, it makes ISPs the responsible for the content on the internet no matter where it comes from. This is crazy. Secondly, in a world wide distribution system, who gets to decide what material is allowed on the community channel? The folks in Utah? Who’s standard of acceptable would qualify? There are already services that provide sorting and blocking at a fine grain level. How does really help? The model seems simple. The internet, they claim is built on a bunch of channels, but we only really use one. This is totally incorrect. Each and every IP address is a potential channel. The port number is irrelevant unless you just want to create a means of harassing people. The pornography debate is a red herring. You point this out yourself (unintentionally), when you mention teens taking all sorts of nasty pictures of each other and posting them. CP80 can’t and won’t succeed in controlling this kind of thing. Of course, the parents don’t seem to have any responsibility here.

Furthermore, is the only content excluded hard core porn? Should include playboy style erotica, information on sexual behavior and health? Do images of classic nude paintings qualify as not community appropriate? What about having the wrong political views? Exactly who decides? The red herring is that they show you an example of something vile that you can find on the internet and they give us this easy solution for fixing it. Except that it won’t work, except to make a small minority of people judges over the content that is accessible.