End of Internet Anonymity?

[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.