Hacker News Reader

Comment by NuSkooler | Hacker News Reader

I worked at a parental controls company for a number of years here in Utah. There were various high members of the LDS church (whom were connected with our company in different ways) that would be pushing these kinds of things all the time.

View on HN

I haven't known general authorities to advocate for violating constitutional rights.

Mandatory filtering/blocking seems pretty unconstitutional to me, which is just one example.

Would you rather have Chrome permit everyone to visit every phishing site? Not OK to take down C2 or botnets? Like it when a DDOS crushes your favorite website because Akamai and Cloudflare can't blackhole the traffic? Your ISP can't filter SMB ports, so everyone with Windows File Sharing gets pwned?

I would rather have governments punish criminals operating phishing sites, C2 and botnets, since, you know, it's _illegal_.

I'm sure the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean govts will get right on that.

Perhaps if malicious countries are engaging in cybercrime in your country, you should disconnect them from your countries internet/phone connections. This would get them to behave right quick or suffer the effects of sanctions. It ain't perfect, but it's better than saying "there's nothing we can do, dude".

Filtering/blocking would depend on the deployment. Lots of potential there tho.

Can you offer any examples of a GA advocating for something that is fairly clearly unconstitutional? Utah has recently passed some boneheaded laws that certainly qualify. A GA advocating for one them would be a sound example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com