News Release


UTAH HOUSE BILL 260 - ANTI PORN BILL
Technical Concerns Surrounding HB260’s IP Address Based Adult Content Registry


HB 260 calls for implementation of an Adult Content Registry using the Internet filtering algorithm – IP Address Filtering.  Although the concept seems logical, there are several serious underlying technical concerns associated with this noted Internet filtering method that makes it an inadequate band-aid at best.


Here are some of the concerns and problems that would arise from the technical inadequacies of the IP Address Filtering method.



1.  Innocent Overblocking:

It is an increasingly common practice to allocate the same IP Address for several unrelated websites. Recent studies show that at least 50% of all websites (or domains) share an IP address with at least 50 other domains.  Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have as many as 500,000 websites sharing the same IP address.  For example, two Utah companies (Certified Management Software and Connectronix) share the same IP address: 198.60.22.4.


The IP Address filtering method does not provide an adequate way to disable or blacklist a website. Since several sites can share the same IP Address a blacklisted site submitted to the Adult Content Registry would also automatically blacklist all of the affiliated innocent sites.



2.  Good Content and Bad Content – No Distinction: 

Consider MSN, a popular search engine (www.search.msn.com) that also has an “images” search engine (www.search.msn.com/images). The “images” search engine provides readily accessible pornographic material.  They both have the same IP address: 66.77.163.27. 

Again, the IP Address filtering method does not distinguish between sites on the same IP Address. Both sites must be allowed, or both sites must be blocked. Other search engines using “image” searches would also have the same problem.



3.  Search Result Quandary: 

Entering a search query (try Utah State Legislature) into a search engine (i.e. Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL) produces multiple pages of search results.


A search query for “pornography” is no different. The text information displayed on these results pages would definitely be considered harmful to minors. These “pornographic” searches (example – “hot sex”) wouldn’t be blocked by an IP addressing scheme unless you also blocked all search engine results from AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Google, and thousands of other search engines.



4.  Slowed Access Times:

In basic terms, routers control Internet traffic and the roadmap they use to direct traffic is called a routing table.


Many small ISP’s already have bloated (larger than recommended) IP address routing tables. Adding entries from the Adult Content Registry could add hundreds to millions of additional entries. Thereby severely impacting the efficiencies and effectiveness of the system. Fast systems are the result of fewer, not more, entries in the routing table.



5.  Individual Rights to Access Barred: 

The routing tables controlled by an ISP affect all of their customers. In other words, if an ISP is forced to place the State of Utah’s blacklisted IP addresses in its routing tables all customers of that ISP will be blocked from accessing the banned IP address, whether they choose to be, or not.



6.  Internet Consulting Companies New Found Risks:

Web-hosting services are not just offered through ISPs. Many consulting companies also offer web-hosting services as part of their overall business services. These companies include: web/Internet consulting, website design, and eCommerce installation firms. 


Using wholesale ISPs they are able to purchase, setup and maintain their clients websites on shared IP addresses. If just one of these consulting clients were blacklisted, every client sharing this IP address would be blacklisted.  The financial implications for disabled innocent sites could be enormous.  Potential lawsuits would undoubtedly ensue.



7.  Additional ISP Costs to Implement:

An infrastructure would need to be implemented by ISPs, Web consulting service companies and the Utah State government so that the State’s Adult Content Registry can interface with routing tables and/or commercial filtering software.


These costs include acquiring and implementing additional software and/or hardware resources. Testing methods of filtering alone could cost a few thousand to millions of dollars.



8.  Inadvertent Purchases of Blacklisted Domains:

A method does not currently exist in the world-wide domain naming system to identify blacklisted sites. This applies to any name – expired or not. Domain name purchasers would have to proceed with discretionary caution.



9.  Web-hosting Transfer Complications

Transferring a website to a new hosting provider is fairly common. Sited reasons for transfer may include bandwidth issues, cost, customer service, etc.


If a legitimate and innocent website decides to move from one hosting company to one with a blacklisted site, under HB 260 the innocent site could also be blacklisted as it would more than likely share the same IP address.



10.  Filtering Implications Beyond Utah Borders: 

Large ISP’s cannot easily distinguish between Utah customers and customers outside of Utah.  Nationwide ISP’s do not align or design their internal networks across the state-line boundaries.   If a blocked IP address is shared with multiple websites, it is possible to inadvertently block innocent websites not just in Utah, but also all over the country.