.sex considered dangerous

[maccorin]

while typing random words into rfc-ediort.org i ran across this
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rf...ile_format=txt
it's amazing what you can find while your bored

[jeager]

Geez -- Organizations and Government waste more money on sticking their noses into everything.

One of these days the nose will get cut off I think.

[jro]

Unfortunately government mandate or laws aren't going to protect children. Its up to the children to make good decisions, and that is taught by the parents.

Sure, the memo had good intentions, but ultimately is destined to fail.

[snct]

Unfortunately government mandate or laws aren't going to protect children. Its up to the children to make good decisions, and that is taught by the parents.

Sure, the memo had good intentions, but ultimately is destined to fail.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ZennouRyuu]

Awesome! THey are going to put it all in one place for me!!! jk, what a load.

[Stween]

Organizations and Government waste more money on sticking their noses into everything.

The author works for Motorola, and the copyright of the document belongs to the Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/). It's not any single government sticking their nose into things, it's the people who actually try to ensure that the Internet works. The document briefly covers why such a scheme couldn't work, in an attempt to stop further moves in this direction.

Should the next sex scandal coupled with sensationalist press get out of hand, on the other hand...

Sure, the memo had good intentions, but ultimately is destined to fail.

It's not a proposal for such things, it's marked as "Informational". The good intentions of the document are to summarise just why it's a bad idea.

In the abstract:

This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view.

In the conclusion:

The concept that a single top level domain name, such as .sex, or a single IP address bit, could be allocated and become the mandatory home of "adult" or "offensive" material world wide is legal and technical nonsense.

[jro]

Thanks for summarizing, now that we all feel like asses for not completely reading the memo, I think it is safe to assume this thread is either dead or about to get out of hand.

[Pugio]

...or about to get out of hand.

Well don't look at me. I don't even know what you guys are talking about. A few words in the topic are not even in my vocabulary. (All I know is what the word "considered" means).

[Fatal Error]

Great conversation, Choices, please make your own, check the facts, who has a vested interest? Lots of people want to control every item on the 'net, and the universal aspect of the 'net makes that very hard to do.

Whats right for "america" isn't always right for some other culture. It isn't always right for "america" either but thats another thing.

Movies/TV in Europe can get an adult rating (or what ever their system calls it) for violence but nudity/sex is not as "dangerous" in Europe as it is in the good old usOFa.

4.2.2 Basically, the idea is a non-starter.

I don't think it should be the "governments" right to protect children from things online. It should be up to the parents. Parents need to take more responsibility in their kids lives these days.

Thats whats wrong with the world.