End of Internet Anonymity?

[Newby]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/0028256

Ugh. Fuck. I guess I won't be upgrading my computer unless I buy the pieces myself. And I'm lazy... =P

[Sidoh]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/0028256

Ugh. Fuck. I guess I won't be upgrading my computer unless I buy the pieces myself. And I'm lazy... =P

That's horrible!  How can you be that stupid, honestly...

[iago]

Isn't Windows Retirement (Vista) going to be doing something very similar to that, with the whole Trusted Computing thing?


In the end, it's probably a good idea.  The Internet is a little too anonymous.  But there are bigger problems to worry about, still. 

My solution: create an Internet 2, designed for business.  To even connect to the Internet 2, you need proper firewall, anti-virus, and all the necessities.  It will cost significantly more to connect to it, and is designed for businesses, not users.  There are still *a lot* of businesses using private pipes due to the crappiness of the Internet, so I'll bet whoever finally creates the Internet 2 will be extremely rich. 

[Sidoh]

Isn't Windows Retirement (Vista) going to be doing something very similar to that, with the whole Trusted Computing thing?


In the end, it's probably a good idea.  The Internet is a little too anonymous.  But there are bigger problems to worry about, still. 

My solution: create an Internet 2, designed for business.  To even connect to the Internet 2, you need proper firewall, anti-virus, and all the necessities.  It will cost significantly more to connect to it, and is designed for businesses, not users.  There are still *a lot* of businesses using private pipes due to the crappiness of the Internet, so I'll bet whoever finally creates the Internet 2 will be extremely rich. 

I like that solution, it make sense.

[Joe]

I don't really know why businesses would need that kinda stuff, but of course, I'm ignorant.

This idea is dumb. I don't want people finding out who I am, and arresting me when I download porn (I'm only 15).

[Sidoh]

I don't really know why businesses would need that kinda stuff, but of course, I'm ignorant.

This idea is dumb. I don't want people finding out who I am, and arresting me when I download porn (I'm only 15).

Because it would make it a lot harder for fraudulent claims to happen if you're forced to present a valid identity.

Edit --

4000 posts, horray! 

[Eric]

* Lord[nK] notes that the Internet2 already exists privately.  Internet2 is used for testing new technology which is planned for future public implimentation.  One of which technologies being IPv6.

[Sidoh]

* Lord[nK] notes that the Internet2 already exists privately.  Internet2 is used for testing new "features" which are planned for future implimentation.  One of which things being IPv6.

Yeah, I remember hearing that too.  I was only commenting on iago's suggestions.

I think a lot of college campuses have some sort of Internet2 running, right?

[Joe]

You mean a LAN?

[Eric]

* Lord[nK] notes that the Internet2 already exists privately.  Internet2 is used for testing new "features" which are planned for future implimentation.  One of which things being IPv6.

I think a lot of college campuses have some sort of Internet2 running, right?

I'm not positive, but I've heard rumors of such.

[iago]

* Lord[nK] notes that the Internet2 already exists privately.  Internet2 is used for testing new technology which is planned for future public implimentation.  One of which technologies being IPv6.

Well, I mean an internet for business only.  Internet2 was just a convenient name. 

[Sidoh]

Well, I mean an internet for business only.  Internet2 was just a convenient name. 

Haha.

[Chavo]

* Lord[nK] notes that the Internet2 already exists privately.  Internet2 is used for testing new "features" which are planned for future implimentation.  One of which things being IPv6.

Yeah, I remember hearing that too.  I was only commenting on iago's suggestions.

I think a lot of college campuses have some sort of Internet2 running, right?

code name Abilene is the major Internet2 backbone in the states, They have pipelines running as depicted here: http://loadrunner.uits.iu.edu/weathermaps/abilene  Most users of abilene are larger universities and companies with large IT interests (telcos, IBM, etc)

[Sidoh]

code name Abilene is the major Internet2 backbone in the states, They have pipelines running as depicted here: http://loadrunner.uits.iu.edu/weathermaps/abilene  Most users of abilene are larger universities and companies with large IT interests (telcos, IBM, etc)

Neat!

[rabbit]

Isn't Windows Retirement (Vista) going to be doing something very similar to that, with the whole Trusted Computing thing?


In the end, it's probably a good idea.  The Internet is a little too anonymous.  But there are bigger problems to worry about, still. 

My solution: create an Internet 2, designed for business.  To even connect to the Internet 2, you need proper firewall, anti-virus, and all the necessities.  It will cost significantly more to connect to it, and is designed for businesses, not users.  There are still *a lot* of businesses using private pipes due to the crappiness of the Internet, so I'll bet whoever finally creates the Internet 2 will be extremely rich. 

iago, you're too late.

[iago]

Isn't Windows Retirement (Vista) going to be doing something very similar to that, with the whole Trusted Computing thing?


In the end, it's probably a good idea.  The Internet is a little too anonymous.  But there are bigger problems to worry about, still. 

My solution: create an Internet 2, designed for business.  To even connect to the Internet 2, you need proper firewall, anti-virus, and all the necessities.  It will cost significantly more to connect to it, and is designed for businesses, not users.  There are still *a lot* of businesses using private pipes due to the crappiness of the Internet, so I'll bet whoever finally creates the Internet 2 will be extremely rich. 

iago, you're too late.

I repeat again, I was using Internet2 as a convenient name.  That is not what I was talking about. 

[Sidoh]

iago, you're too late.

I don't think so!

Internet2 is not a separate physical network and will not replace the Internet. Internet2 brings together institutions and resources from academia, industry and government to develop new technologies and capabilities that can then be deployed in the global Internet. Close collaboration with Internet2 corporate members will ensure that new applications and technologies are rapidly deployed throughout the Internet. Just as email and the World Wide Web are legacies of earlier investments in academic and federal research networks, the legacy of Internet2 will be to expand the possibilities of the broader Internet.[top]

In iago's solution, he separated the Internet as we know it now into two different sections.  The idea behind this "Internet2" movement is just a consortium created for different groups to affiliate and share knowledge (and test what they've proposed, etc).

[rabbit]

Which will eventually degenerate into the same style of connections as Internet1.

[Sidoh]

Which will eventually degenerate into the same style of connections as Internet1.

I suppose you're right, but there's recently been a breakthrough in code theory that I think will cause us to see some changes in network protocols sometime in the future.  They've gotten a lot nearer to the Shannon Limit than the current protocols do with a combination of Turbo Codes and some other checksum algorithm I can't remember the name of.

[iago]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

[MyndFyre]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

[iago]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

[Blaze]

More like Lenin.

'Must crush Capatalism...'

[MyndFyre]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

Sounds like it'd be too easy for Big Brother to look over your shoulder.

[iago]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

Sounds like it'd be too easy for Big Brother to look over your shoulder.

Ah, thanks for reminding me of another part: everything would be encrypted with a strong algorithm, by requirement.  There would be no option. 

[Eric]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

You mean you want ISP's to control user security?!  I see a very large margin for error.

[iago]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

You mean you want ISP's to control user security?!  I see a very large margin for error.

There would not be ISPs in the conventional sense.  There would be a single central authority (commercial or non-commercial, whatever) that creates and enforces the regulations. 

As I said, this would be designed for corporations only, and would be designed ground-up with security in mind. 

[Blaze]

Sounding more like communism all the time.

[Eric]

A new Internet would have to be governed.  It would not be public, like the current one is. 

Then what's the point of being anonymous on it?

Way to show your communist colors, Stalin! 

It wouldn't be anonymous.  You would need a license, and to conform to strict agreements (especially involving things like virus checking, firewalls).  The license would be revoked as soon as you started spamming, sending out viruses, etc. 

It would be barely anything like the current Internet. 

You mean you want ISP's to control user security?!  I see a very large margin for error.

There would not be ISPs in the conventional sense.  There would be a single central authority (commercial or non-commercial, whatever) that creates and enforces the regulations. 

As I said, this would be designed for corporations only, and would be designed ground-up with security in mind. 

You can't give that much control to a single entity as there's no telling what they'd do with the power.  You'd be creating a monopoly... a Microsoft of the internet.

[iago]

Sounding more like communism all the time.

Uhh, it's the exact opposite of communism.  Communism = everybody is equal, which is how it is now. 

You can't give that much control to a single entity as there's no telling what they'd do with the power.  You'd be creating a monopoly... a Microsoft for the internet.

How it's run is open.  It would probably be provided by a company, but it can be done by an organization instead.  A democratic one, even.  Why not?

[Quik]

Sounding more like communism all the time.

Uhh, it's the exact opposite of communism.  Communism = everybody is equal, which is how it is now. 

You can't give that much control to a single entity as there's no telling what they'd do with the power.  You'd be creating a monopoly... a Microsoft for the internet.

How it's run is open.  It would probably be provided by a company, but it can be done by an organization instead.  A democratic one, even.  Why not?

Then the powerful organization uses all of the resources for themselves and gives nothing to the lower class other users and destroy your perfect little world.

[iago]

Then the powerful organization uses all of the resources for themselves and gives nothing to the lower class other users and destroy your perfect little world.

Having organizations running the public internet right now seems to be working pretty fine. 

[Eric]

Then the powerful organization uses all of the resources for themselves and gives nothing to the lower class other users and destroy your perfect little world.

Having organizations running the public internet right now seems to be working pretty fine. 

Organizations.

[Sidoh]

Organizations.

Yeah, that's the only reason the internet works really well, I think--because it's not centralized.

[iago]

The Internet, is by design, a public, insecure network that's being used every day for extremely sensitive and critical information. 

That's a serious problem waiting to happen.  If something happened that creamed the Internet (it CAN happen!!), think of how screwed the corporations/stock companies/etc. would be. 

Maybe my solution isn't the best one.  I'm proposing ideas, not coming up with a final solution.  How would you suggest implementing a secure network for these types of things?

[Sidoh]

The Internet, is by design, a public, insecure network that's being used every day for extremely sensitive and critical information. 

That's a serious problem waiting to happen.  If something happened that creamed the Internet (it CAN happen!!), think of how screwed the corporations/stock companies/etc. would be. 

Maybe my solution isn't the best one.  I'm proposing ideas, not coming up with a final solution.  How would you suggest implementing a secure network for these types of things?

I, personally, think your design was pretty good, as long as the Internet we're using today coincides with "Internet2."  People have become to dependant on it as means of advertizement, entertainment and connection.

[Eric]

The Internet, is by design, a public, insecure network that's being used every day for extremely sensitive and critical information. 

That's a serious problem waiting to happen.  If something happened that creamed the Internet (it CAN happen!!), think of how screwed the corporations/stock companies/etc. would be. 

Maybe my solution isn't the best one.  I'm proposing ideas, not coming up with a final solution.  How would you suggest implementing a secure network for these types of things?

Centralized servers can increase security, but at the same time decrease performance and reliability, and essentially give almost full control to the company running the servers.  The amount of control you want to leave in the hands of the server company would enable them to do as they please which when added with a few corrupt officials could mean complete chaos, much more so than ever possible before.

Personally, I think that security should be left up to those who run the networks/services — rather than failing at creating a secure medium, use public-key encryption and/or VPNs to establish secure mediums over an insecure one.  There's a number of problems with your setup: remote access, lack of nearby access points for companies to connect to increasing overall cost, etc. all of which don't affect the method already in place.

[iago]

Personally, I think that security should be left up to those who run the networks/services — rather than failing at creating a secure medium, use public-key encryption and/or VPNs to establish secure mediums over an insecure one.  Shouldn't mess with a good thing...

They are doing that now.  But the Internet now is a big mess.  There's so many viruses roaming around, and botnets that could destroy a business, and nobody answers to anybody.  People in other countries that are wasting bandwidth spreading worms around 3 years after they were originally released and nobody is ever going to force them to stop.

I know of a lot of businesses that use private pipes between cities.  It's horribly inefficient, but it's the only reliable way to transfer data.  The regular Internet is too polluted. 

[ZeroX]

Personally, I think that security should be left up to those who run the networks/services — rather than failing at creating a secure medium, use public-key encryption and/or VPNs to establish secure mediums over an insecure one.  Shouldn't mess with a good thing...

They are doing that now.  But the Internet now is a big mess.  There's so many viruses roaming around, and botnets that could destroy a business, and nobody answers to anybody.  People in other countries that are wasting bandwidth spreading worms around 3 years after they were originally released and nobody is ever going to force them to stop.

I know of a lot of businesses that use private pipes between cities.  It's horribly inefficient, but it's the only reliable way to transfer data.  The regular Internet is too polluted. 

I would like to know why cant they just do a Mass Sever restart (Something around the lines of wow) Where they just shut the internet down for 24 hours "MASS PANIC" But after that all worms,virus,spam ect... is deleted and everything is safe and sercure like it was back in the 90's?.

[iago]

Personally, I think that security should be left up to those who run the networks/services — rather than failing at creating a secure medium, use public-key encryption and/or VPNs to establish secure mediums over an insecure one.  Shouldn't mess with a good thing...

They are doing that now.  But the Internet now is a big mess.  There's so many viruses roaming around, and botnets that could destroy a business, and nobody answers to anybody.  People in other countries that are wasting bandwidth spreading worms around 3 years after they were originally released and nobody is ever going to force them to stop.

I know of a lot of businesses that use private pipes between cities.  It's horribly inefficient, but it's the only reliable way to transfer data.  The regular Internet is too polluted. 

I would like to know why cant they just do a Mass Sever restart (Something around the lines of wow) Where they just shut the internet down for 24 hours "MASS PANIC" But after that all worms,virus,spam ect... is deleted and everything is safe and sercure like it was back in the 90's?.

Because the people who own the computers that have the viruses don't realize that they do, and don't know how to get rid of them. 

[Chavo]

Having organizations running the public internet right now seems to be working pretty fine. 

If by fine you mean ICANN being virtually controlled by the US government and ISPs that can do pretty much anything they want....

[Sidoh]

If by fine you mean ICANN being virtually controlled by the US government and ISPs that can do pretty much anything they want....

Yeah, it does have its problems, but I don't think it would be much better if there was a single power that governed what ISP's could and couldn't do.  I think it would defeat the purpose of the Internet.

[iago]

Haha, I'm just remembering when Verisign redirected *.com to their search page.  They screwed up people who typed wrong, mistyped email addresses were lost, and it wreaked all sorts of havok on anything. 

People complained big time, and within a week Verisign removed the entry. 

So that's just proof that it works: there are enough people that the Internet self-governs, even though organizations are in control.