In article <199604172021.QAA01638@universe.digex.net>, Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net> wrote:
I'm beginning to agree with the CDA supporter who claimed that "you're just trying to protect your pornography by saying it's impossible when we all know otherwise." Of course, that person really didn't know otherwise, but I do. The abstract model of the Internet network layer thinks of all transport entities as equivalent, as are all link entities. In the real world, such mixed user bases are unusual. If my scheme were implemented, service providers would probably have to segregate shell account access onto "childproof" and "adult" machines, or acquire a TCSEC B level system. Either approach works, and most would likely choose the former, since its cheaper. It's still not really that many machines.
Don't forget: There are lots of colleges and universities on the net, and most of these universities have undergraduates, and a significant fraction of these undergraduates are minors. The potential user base is going to be mixed and must be presumed to be so. (That, I'm told, is the chief justification of the Carnegie-Mellon ban on the alt.sex.* Usenet newsgroups.) *Lots* of systems are affected by this problem. (Remember, as far as the CDA is concerned, a seventeen-year-and-eleven- month-old downloading nekkid pictures is every bit as bad as a six-year-old doing so.) -- Alan Bostick | They say in online country there is no middle way mailto:abostick@netcom.com | You'll either be a Usenet man or a thug for the CDA news:alt.grelb | Simon Spero (after Tom Glazer) http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick