Any hope computing could come out of wilderness?

[Segfault]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Unsung heroes save net from chaos

[Rubberman]

The unstructured way that the internet is organized is its saving grace, I believe. It mimics how communication happens in the real world between individuals and groups. If it becomes too structured then spontenaity is lost, and arbitrary controls will become ubuiquitous - a problem we are already facing daily.

[Segfault]

Well, this is not what I think would be the right thing, but imagine following:

Internet usage becomes regulated and governed and policied as, say, traffic.

Everyone driving on highways has to have a license proving (s)he knows the rules and has to follow those rules. Because otherwise accidents will happen, human lives will be lost, plus economic losses. If you leave your keys in the car and someone abuses it you will be responsible. If your car doesn't have brakes or steering you will be responsible for damages.

Same goes for internet, if Joe's computer is hijacked [for long time] and used to commit crimes - shouldn't Joe be responsible? The only difference with road traffic is human lives are not directly lost. Indirectly it's more than possible. Stolen identities, ruined lives, spamming costs $$$$$$ daily, etc. All this because people do not have the qualification to stay safe online. Windows computers cannot be secured, how comes they are allowed to go online? If Joe is so stupid and installs a trojan in his computer (a victim of social engineering), shouldn't he give up his license to go online for a while?

[teenytinylinuxgrl]

So who should have police powers to "license" internet users or content? Is that something that governments should do (I'm not talking about enforcing existing laws like identity theft or child porn for example because law enforcement agencies can already track that)? Or would we be left at the mercy of private internet vendors or some megacorporation like (dare I say it) Microsoft?

I wouldn't be in favor of either one. Leave the 'net free and let people be responsible for themselves and bear the consequences of that liberty themselves. I don't think we should want the government regulating the internet. What we need to do instead is educate people about safe, responsible use of the 'net. IMO

Amy

[D-cat]

A bit OT as it relates to the original article, but I'll bite.

The counter to this is the Internet is a communication platform. What you're proposing is in a way a limit to free speech. True, such limitations do exist, violations can get you sued for libel, slander, deprivation of character, and of course there's the field of public profanity and criminal threatening. The Internet already falls under (most of) these restrictions same as oral speech.

A computer is not a car, a car is a means of transportation, to convey one's person or cargo. What you're proposing, a license to compute on-line, would in some way be like requiring a license to talk in public.

At least in the USA, this is expressly forbidden by our first amendment. We have the freedom of public speech as a guaranteed right. "Freedom of Speech includes volume!" - Gallagher.

When it comes to the misuse of our tools, again, there is a lacking parallel. You generally know when you car has been stolen, especially hijacked. It's not so with your computer; there's so many back doors and cracks to a computer system that much can happen without the owners knowledge or consent. In the US, there is no crime without intent (mens rea) or gross negligence. In order for Joe to be held responsible, you have to prove either that Joe committed the criminal acts, or he knew about the acts being committed from his computer and did nothing to stop it. In the event that you can prove that, then it is possible for a judge to sanction Joe, depending on the crime being committed, including forbidding him use of a modem.

Beyond that, what would be the licensing requirements? How would you allow children to still access the benefits and resources of the web; or would you prefer they can't?

A license to go online is not necessary or warranted. It would cause more harm than good, and only serve as a way for the government to tax more money from its people. I also think it would be ineffective in reaching the desired goal, which I perceive as limiting or stopping remote based computer crimes.

Perhaps what could be done is a solution more on the ISP end? Remember shell accounts? Maybe a modern graphical version could be implemented using NX technology, and go back to using a two stage FTP design to actually download files from the web. This would still allow free content flow over the web, but limit the kind of damage that can be caused by trojans since no computer routed this way would have a direct connection to the web. The ISP would have control over what programs had direct web access since they'd be running on their servers and not your computer. It has advantages and drawbacks, but I see it as a viable solution to kill the effectiveness of spambots, data miners, DDoS trojans and other network based spyware... and maybe save on some bandwidth in the process. I can't imagine our "all seeing eye" Government would be unhappy with it either.

[Segfault]

Well, are you right? Likely. Are you wrong? Possibly. Because internet is much more than speech communication-wise. Every kind of data is moving back and forth over the internet. Internet is something mankind never had before. And it is a complete jungle. Weakest meets the strongest. Directly, puter-to-puter. Looking at my router logs - break-in attempts from all over the world. No borderlines nor border patrols. Now, if this weakest is too stupid, uneducated or negligent to stay alive, shouldn't something be done about it? Isn't this like a kid running to the interstate? Somebody has to stop this kid.

[D-cat]

If you're talking about leveling the field in what would otherwise be a Darwinian wildlife scenario, then we've come right crux to our legislative dilemma. Freedom to stand is also freedom to fall, people don't like their freedoms being legislated away, even when it relieves some responsibility. As it sits, it is Joe's responsibility to secure his computer, and there can be consequence for failing to do so; even if he's vindicated in court, just having to go through the process has impact, to say nothing of having his personal information mined and put to no good end. Can there be a hard line drawn in this case, since the experience, knowledge, and usage for one joe may be different for another?

This is why I made an alternate proposal. I'm already seeing some of the drawbacks and possible solutions (you'd have to get the ISP's to play nice though). My proposal would solve the technical problem while not requiring "protective confinement" type legislation.

[Segfault]

Your proposal is kind of good old UNIX network with contemporary GUI terminals. No analogy really fits in here, but isn't this like forcing everybody to use buses for commute instead of private vehicles? Idea itself is good though. Only there should be a possibility for private computers to go online directly. How about this: everybody can use ISP offered internet interface, those who want more have to prove they are qualified.
That said, I realize it will never happen in real world. Damages done thru internet abuse are too abstract for people to feel the need to regulate it.

[D-cat]

Agreed, on both accounts, though I'd like to see it as an ISP Terms of Use thing and not a legislative thing.

...with additional exception to business customers who show a need for their own local server.

I like the bus analogy, and it fits. What is your alternative if you can't drive?

[lucho]

Typical BBC, a dramatic title wrapped around some factoids. This is just the same as the 'war on drugs.' It's a convenient excuse to mess with freedom of expression (because that freedom discomfits certain interests). Like Rubberman said, the chaotic nature of the internet is itself what makes it viable.