End of Internet Anonymity?

[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!  :P

[iago]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45297#msg45297 date=1134688765]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=4185.msg45281#msg45281 date=1134687211]

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!  :P

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?