North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?

  • From: Jack Bates
  • Date: Tue Sep 23 13:20:59 2003 
Mike Tancsa wrote:

I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do with a matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to get the lawyers involved :( Certainly if the company persisted, we would have done so. The fact that they can then go to another ISP who does not care and allows them to use their network is another issue.

Of course, it depends on the local laws, but in many locations, pornography has a lot of restrictions and when those restrictions are broken, it becomes a criminal matter. For example, most of my user's have "family" accounts. This means that their email is not only theirs but their children and grandchildren's. Even if the owner of the account is an adult, the fact that their children are present when they read their email means that all pornographic spam they receive is essentially being delivered to a minor. This is especially true with misleading subject lines where children are exposed to unwanted material before anyone realizes it. In Oklahoma, at least, it is a criminal offense to expose children to pornographic material.

-Jack