Opposed

["JLatham" <jlatham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sir,

The bottom line is that I am, in general, opposed to any group that proposes
to represent me on moral grounds.  In this specific case, while a applaud
attempts to reduce 'porn' on the internet, I am equally if not more so
opposed to anything approaching censorship of anything - we would be better
served to more vigorously monitor websites hosting hate groups of any type.
Again bottom line: OPPOSED.

 

I would support a less technical, and voluntary, registration of adult
sexually oriented sites with a dot-tripleX domain, as .xxx  Such
identification would readily permit filtering and control by THE END USER of
what sites are restricted from access and which are not.  In general it
would appear that such sites want to attract visitors and that alone would
drive the honest purveyors of adult material to register under that banner.

 

I'm not sure about other countries, but I can easily see that in the United
States of America, attempted morals legislation has historically failed.
The classic example being the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages in the
20's.  That simply led to gluttonous profits by those who chose to ignore
the law and take advantage of a market demand to generate illegal revenue.
Better to legalize and regulate than to ban and spend profuse amounts of
monetary funds to attempt to police the internet.

 

The use of alternate ports to gain access to specialized sites places an
unrealistic burden upon the non-technically oriented to gain access to the
web sites of their choice, and may place an additional burden upon the net
infrastructure to support such non-standard routings.

 

Thank you for your time and interest, and for providing a public forum for
response to the initiative.

 

Respectfully,

2kmaro - retired Moderator of WWW.BroadbandReports.com

a.k.a.

Jerry Latham, MSgt, USAF (Ret)

Member, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute

Member, IEEE

Microsoft MVP (Excel Product Group since 2006)