Thread

my turn to rant?

Amelie, 24 Oct 2005 10:51:59

so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn whilst,( as
with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off the
profits from demand.

And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on the
back burner and fantasy ruling?

http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html

Domain will help curb illegal porn
Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the potential
advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws, 22
August).
Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount of
pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content providers
adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses to
control access and block content.
Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF),
which already works to combat illegal content.
The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I believe
that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
Mark Taylor, Ibas

Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.

and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
----- Original Message -----

, 24 Oct 2005 10:51:59

To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:42 AM

clare, 24 Oct 2005 11:11:17

The question of whether Governments are entitled to regulate the production and distribution of obscene material is not really up for grabs, or at least is not the issue in this consultation. No one is presently lobbying for the repeal of the Obscene Publications Act.

Because the government is, at present, unable to regulate the production and distribution of obscene material on the internet, it wants instead to deflect responsibility from the producers to the consumers, by criminalizing possession.

In order to regulate the distribution of material that originates in different jurisdictions, governments need international consensus. The xxx domain is part of an international consensus to regulate distribution.

You may well oppose any regulation of Obscene Material, but that is a different battle.

Author wrote:
> so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn whilst,( as
> with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
> criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
> multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off the
> profits from demand.
> And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on the
> back burner and fantasy ruling?
> http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> Domain will help curb illegal porn
> Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the potential
> advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws, 22
> August).
> Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount of
> pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content providers
> adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses to
> control access and block content.
> Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
> imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
> fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF),
> which already works to combat illegal content.
> The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
> officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I believe
> that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
> illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
> protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
> Mark Taylor, Ibas
> Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.
> and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
> it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> ----- Original Message -----

: , 24 Oct 2005 11:11:17

> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:42 AM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: making contact with the outside world
> > some sites that have mentioned the government's plans.
> >
> > www.out-law.com/page-6063
> > www.publictechnology.net/print.php?sid=3552
> >
> > www.egovmonitor.com/node/2478
> >
> > management.silicon.com/government/ 0,39024677,39151804,00.htm
> >
> > publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=372 p2pnet.net/story/6081
> >
> > www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=25828&...
> >
> > www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/news/2141684/u...
> >
> > www.BFI.org.uk
> >
> > www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/30/violent_smut_cr...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2262
> >

Amelie, 24 Oct 2005 11:19:41

I know it is tangential, but if we can show why this proposed porn law is
part of a wider initiative to regulate and profit from the very thing they
are purporting to abhor, we may well be able to regain the emotional and
moral high ground.
----- Original Message -----

, 24 Oct 2005 11:19:41

To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:11 AM

> The question of whether Governments are entitled to regulate the
> production and distribution of obscene material is not really up for
> grabs, or at least is not the issue in this consultation. No one is
> presently lobbying for the repeal of the Obscene Publications Act.
>
> Because the government is, at present, unable to regulate the production
> and distribution of obscene material on the internet, it wants instead to
> deflect responsibility from the producers to the consumers, by
> criminalizing possession.
>
> In order to regulate the distribution of material that originates in
> different jurisdictions, governments need international consensus. The xxx
> domain is part of an international consensus to regulate distribution.
>
> You may well oppose any regulation of Obscene Material, but that is a
> different battle.
>
> Author wrote:
>> so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn
>> whilst,( as
>> with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
>> criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
>> multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off
>> the
>> profits from demand.
>> And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on
>> the
>> back burner and fantasy ruling?
>> http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
>> Domain will help curb illegal porn
>> Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the
>> potential
>> advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws,
>> 22
>> August).
>> Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount
>> of
>> pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content
>> providers
>> adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses
>> to
>> control access and block content.
>> Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
>> imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
>> fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation
>> (IWF),
>> which already works to combat illegal content.
>> The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
>> officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I
>> believe
>> that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
>> illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
>> protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
>> Mark Taylor, Ibas
>> Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.
>> and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
>> it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
>> ----- Original Message -----

m: , 24 Oct 2005 11:19:41

>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:42 AM
>> Subject: [backlash] RE: making contact with the outside world
>> > some sites that have mentioned the government's plans.
>> >
>> > www.out-law.com/page-6063
>> > www.publictechnology.net/print.php?sid=3552
>> >
>> > www.egovmonitor.com/node/2478
>> >
>> > management.silicon.com/government/ 0,39024677,39151804,00.htm
>> >
>> > publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=372 p2pnet.net/story/6081
>> >
>> > www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=25828&...
>> >
>> > www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/news/2141684/u...
>> >
>> > www.BFI.org.uk
>> >
>> > www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/30/violent_smut_cr...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>> >
>> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>> >
>> > Report abuse
>> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2262
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2276
>

Manniq, 24 Oct 2005 11:27:23

Conspiracy probably goes too far....but if you find what I posted a llong time ago on the bases of this legislation, I suggested that whilst a lot of the running is made by the usual suspects (religious groups, feminist activists, etc.) the real movers are probably two:

- the state, because the people who set up the internet had the gall, in its early days, to boast of a new dawn, by whose light individuals would no longer be subject to state control of what they said or thought. The state listened to this....and I think this is part of the response. It is NOT about a lone nutter murdering people....

- Business, in two incarnations. First, fluffy business, which really really wants the internet to succeed, because cost to serve over this particular channel is low - and enables businesses to trade at a fraction of what it costs them through other channels. But for it to work for them, it needs to be truly light and fluffy. A safe and cuddly place where children and lambs can frolic safely, without the Childcatcher lurking hidden behind some portals.

Second, 'nasty' business... the sort that makes its money from porn...and as you say, some of this will be criminal. Amateurs doing their own thing just aren't profitable. So they need us corralled within their own smut sites, where we can do sexual things in an acceptable fashion.

Those who naively believe that Business and State and crime do not get on should read up on the Mafia post WWII and the US intervention on their behalf. Basically, what the state hates is disorganised crime... because at the end of the day, it can do business with organised crime!

Regards,

M
Author wrote:
> so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn whilst,( as
> with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
> criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
> multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off the
> profits from demand.
> And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on the
> back burner and fantasy ruling?
> http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> Domain will help curb illegal porn
> Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the potential
> advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws, 22
> August).
> Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount of
> pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content providers
> adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses to
> control access and block content.
> Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
> imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
> fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF),
> which already works to combat illegal content.
> The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
> officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I believe
> that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
> illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
> protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
> Mark Taylor, Ibas
> Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.
> and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
> it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> ----- Original Message -----

: , 24 Oct 2005 11:27:23

Manniq, 24 Oct 2005 11:32:26

Different battle, same war.

I agree that in the context of respondinbg to the consultation paper in five/six weeks time, this is digression (just as many of my tangents are). But in the long run, we need a complete story.

I hesitate to use horrid political words like 'dialectic' - but that, too.

We do need analysis fo what is going on, and understanding of the root causes - otherwise we end up tilting at windmills. This is NOT about Jane Longhurst. It is about things like control of the internet, government control of what we see and do, etc.

We MUST fight this proposal with everything at our disposal. But if ever I am sat in front of a non-bdsm audience...whether lawyers, artists, politicians.... I WANT the wider perspective so that I can communicate to THEM the wider perspective.

And the more you can communicate that wider perspective, the more potential allies - as well as the easier to make connections.

Regards,

M
Author wrote:
> The question of whether Governments are entitled to regulate the production and distribution of obscene material is not really up for grabs, or at least is not the issue in this consultation. No one is presently lobbying for the repeal of the Obscene Publications Act.
> Because the government is, at present, unable to regulate the production and distribution of obscene material on the internet, it wants instead to deflect responsibility from the producers to the consumers, by criminalizing possession.
> In order to regulate the distribution of material that originates in different jurisdictions, governments need international consensus. The xxx domain is part of an international consensus to regulate distribution.
> You may well oppose any regulation of Obscene Material, but that is a different battle.
> Author wrote:
> > so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn whilst,( as
> > with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
> > criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
> > multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off the
> > profits from demand.
> > And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on the
> > back burner and fantasy ruling?
> > http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> > Domain will help curb illegal porn
> > Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the potential
> > advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws, 22
> > August).
> > Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount of
> > pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content providers
> > adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses to
> > control access and block content.
> > Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
> > imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
> > fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF),
> > which already works to combat illegal content.
> > The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
> > officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I believe
> > that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
> > illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
> > protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
> > Mark Taylor, Ibas
> > Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.
> > and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
> > it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
> > ----- Original Message -----

om: , 24 Oct 2005 11:32:26

> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:42 AM
> > Subject: [backlash] RE: making contact with the outside world
> > > some sites that have mentioned the government's plans.
> > >
> > > www.out-law.com/page-6063
> > > www.publictechnology.net/print.php?sid=3552
> > >
> > > www.egovmonitor.com/node/2478
> > >
> > > management.silicon.com/government/ 0,39024677,39151804,00.htm
> > >
> > > publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=372 p2pnet.net/story/6081
> > >
> > > www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=25828&...
> > >
> > > www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/news/2141684/u...
> > >
> > > www.BFI.org.uk
> > >
> > > www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/30/violent_smut_cr...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > >
> > > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > >
> > > Report abuse
> > > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2262
> > >

Amelie, 24 Oct 2005 11:44:14

wow! can I pinch some of that?
----- Original Message -----

, 24 Oct 2005 11:44:14

To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:27 AM

>
> Conspiracy probably goes too far....but if you find what I posted a llong
> time ago on the bases of this legislation, I suggested that whilst a lot
> of the running is made by the usual suspects (religious groups, feminist
> activists, etc.) the real movers are probably two:
>
> - the state, because the people who set up the internet had the gall, in
> its early days, to boast of a new dawn, by whose light individuals would
> no longer be subject to state control of what they said or thought. The
> state listened to this....and I think this is part of the response. It is
> NOT about a lone nutter murdering people....
>
> - Business, in two incarnations. First, fluffy business, which really
> really wants the internet to succeed, because cost to serve over this
> particular channel is low - and enables businesses to trade at a fraction
> of what it costs them through other channels. But for it to work for
> them, it needs to be truly light and fluffy. A safe and cuddly place
> where children and lambs can frolic safely, without the Childcatcher
> lurking hidden behind some portals.
>
> Second, 'nasty' business... the sort that makes its money from porn...and
> as you say, some of this will be criminal. Amateurs doing their own thing
> just aren't profitable. So they need us corralled within their own smut
> sites, where we can do sexual things in an acceptable fashion.
>
> Those who naively believe that Business and State and crime do not get on
> should read up on the Mafia post WWII and the US intervention on their
> behalf. Basically, what the state hates is disorganised crime... because
> at the end of the day, it can do business with organised crime!
>
> Regards,
>
> M
> Author wrote:
>> so there is to be a high-priced,legal provider of internet porn
>> whilst,( as
>> with water, herbs, food and health care) amateur provision is to be
>> criminalised whilst organised crime, wealthy movers and shakers,
>> multinationals, quangos, software companies and governments siphon off
>> the
>> profits from demand.
>> And what will happen to mental health in the process - with real-life on
>> the
>> back burner and fantasy ruling?
>> http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
>> Domain will help curb illegal porn
>> Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the
>> potential
>> advantages appear to outweigh the risks (Whitehall reviews net porn laws,
>> 22
>> August).
>> Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount
>> of
>> pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content
>> providers
>> adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses
>> to
>> control access and block content.
>> Obviously the domain will have no impact on those trading in illegal
>> imagery. However, revenue generated from the .xxx domain could be used to
>> fund an industry watchdog, or bolster the Internet Watch Foundation
>> (IWF),
>> which already works to combat illegal content.
>> The porn industry is worth billions and is not going away. As a former
>> officer with the Metropolitan Police's Obscene Publications Unit, I
>> believe
>> that the .xxx domain would separate legitimate adult entertainment from
>> illegal and criminally obscene material. This would help police and child
>> protection agencies to more effectively tackle the real offenders.
>> Mark Taylor, Ibas
>> Hypocrisy? Conspiracy? This is getting really frightening.
>> and this - but you need to scroll to bottom left of page to find
>> it -http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
>> ----- Original Message -----

m: , 24 Oct 2005 11:44:14

Lothario, 24 Oct 2005 18:08:36

The "xxx" top-level domain is a nasty piece of work.

Firstly, because it implies an arbitrary division of content into
porn/not-porn. This might be fine for those that are happily running
legal, commercial, large-scale porn sites. Less fine for those who do
not consider their content to be porn (but might be thought so by
others), or who are non-commercial, or simply don't choose to be
there.

Secondly, because the whole ICANN system is a nasty piece of work that
runs as an arm of the US government at the behest of "big IT". It is
premised on two inherently ridiculous ideas: that top-level domain
names should be meaningful, and that there should be a shortage of
them. Neither of these ideas correspond to any kind of reality I'm
familiar with. In essence, they create false competition in a market
where there is no inherent scarcity.

If I have the commercial and technical means to set up a
".bigbadbanana" top-level domain, is there any good reason why I
shouldn't be able to do so?

Next they'll be trying to ration ideas.

Oh.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

fobix, 24 Oct 2005 18:27:42

Bring on OpenNIC ( http://scoop.opennic.unrated.net/?op=special;page=faq )

On 24/10/05, Lothario wrote:
> The "xxx" top-level domain is a nasty piece of work.
>
> Firstly, because it implies an arbitrary division of content into
> porn/not-porn. This might be fine for those that are happily running
> legal, commercial, large-scale porn sites. Less fine for those who do
> not consider their content to be porn (but might be thought so by
> others), or who are non-commercial, or simply don't choose to be
> there.
>
> Secondly, because the whole ICANN system is a nasty piece of work that
> runs as an arm of the US government at the behest of "big IT". It is
> premised on two inherently ridiculous ideas: that top-level domain
> names should be meaningful, and that there should be a shortage of
> them. Neither of these ideas correspond to any kind of reality I'm
> familiar with. In essence, they create false competition in a market
> where there is no inherent scarcity.
>
> If I have the commercial and technical means to set up a
> ".bigbadbanana" top-level domain, is there any good reason why I
> shouldn't be able to do so?
>
> Next they'll be trying to ration ideas.
>
> Oh.
>
> --
> Lothario.
>
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2338
>

Lothario, 24 Oct 2005 18:47:25

On 10/24/05, Phoebe _ wrote:
> Bring on OpenNIC ( http://scoop.opennic.unrated.net/?op=special;page=faq )

Indeed. Though I think I've thrown enough technical guff at this group
for now without going into the myriad weirdness of using alternative
root servers.

If you're happy with ICANN's policies in principle but dislike its
dominance in practice, there's always ORSN:

http://european.nl.orsn.net/faq.php

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

Graham Marsden, 24 Oct 2005 19:45:14

Amelie wrote:

> Despite concerns over the planned .xxx domain for adult sites, the
> potential advantages appear to outweigh the risks

> Realistically, the new domain will neither curb nor increase the amount of
> pornography available on the net. However, if most adult content providers
> adopted .xxx addresses it would become easier for parents and businesses to
> control access and block content.

So where does that leave me?

My site has "adult content" because it shows BDSM gear on models, but
it's not an "XXX" site. Is it "pornographic"? Maybe, by some
definitions. Does it have appropriate warnings and is it registered with
Net Nanny, Surf Watch et al? Yep.

So am I going to be forced to change it because people can't take
responsibility for what happens on their computers...! :-(

Cheers,
Graham.