Slashdot Mirror
License to Surf, Take Two
NaugaHunter writes "A story on Yahoo asks
Should [a] License Be Required to Go Online? It appears to be suggested by Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for Counterpane Internet Security Inc. 'It could be a four-year college degree, a one-month course. It might be a good idea.' The story also details efforts of some schools from simple orientation to threats of fines for spreading viruses, and questions exactly who would be responsible for keeping track of who is and isn't licensed." Not a new idea, but one that's going to keep coming up. Update: 09/13 18:11 GMT by M : Bruce Schneier notes that he isn't in favor of computer licenses.
That is a bit too much control on our rights, in my opinion. I would think that if that can happen for the Internet, then it could also happen for TV, telephone, and any other type of communication device.
Though education is important, it is the software vendors who are really to blame for a lot of the problems... (i.e. RPC holes, etc) A lot of the propagation of viruses and worms is a result of software accessing flaws in the software, without user intervention.
Apple 10 GB iPod
Why don't we start taxing email! Or perhaps data by the megabyte! Think of the revenues!
flamebait.
2 1337 4 u!
Take care of revamping drivers tests first? A retarded monkey can pass drivers tests in most states.
If surfing is outlawed, only outlaws will surf.
First off this whole virus issue is just starting to get really bad. A few years ago it wasn't necisarry for the average user to be so vigiant. As it become necisarry, whose to say that they won't learn by collective experiance. And if you are going require licenses from anyone, lets start with the people writting poor software that is allowing the net to degrade the way it is? (and again whose to say that they won't improve on their own now that it is becoming more necisarry to do so).
But here's my real question. Why post such flaimbait? This article is just some nobody giving his foolish opinion in a non-influential news site. If this was on CNN, then i could kind of see posting it. It this written by a big name in IT, I could see posting it. If there was ANY chance that this guy would be taken seriously, i might understand posting it. But there is none. This article is pure flaimbait, and Bruce Schneier is a Nazi.
I help administer an apartment/dorm-ish complex at a university. Basically the approach we're taking is letting people know what's expected: virus checker, etc. If an incident occurs and we find the person wasn't taking adequate precautions, they get fined.
I don't think you can require people to do stuff like take classes, but if they're neglegent, they should be held responsible.
"Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
So once the users are educated with a basic set of computing knowledge, and when only people that actually know what they are doing are using computers...what's going to happen to lovely tech support?
As a help desk worker, I've thought this would be a nice thing to have many a time... but for it to work at all, a license would have to be valid for a year or so at most, at least the way technology changes today. Would an "internet knowledge test" from 5 years ago have a lot of relevance today? I rather doubt it.
To really be a responsible and competent net-user, it's not good enough to write a test once - you have to get some basic knowledge, and then use that to continually learn new things as they appear.
In essence, we are blaming users for things that aren't their fault.
The article talks about the need to install anti-virus software, and keep up on patches, and to read the fine print in click-through licenses to prevent spyware from being installed. All of these things need to be done to operate a computer safely, true.
But why the hell are they required? We are giving users HORRIBLE software that is prone to constant infection. Some companies are taking advantage of click-through licensing to hijack people's computers. And we're blaming USERS for not doing the right things?
That would be like making cars that exploded if you ran them at exactly 62mph for more than 12 continuous minutes, with brake systems on the outside of the car where anyone could walk by, flip a switch, and disable them, as well as aftermarket accessories that forced cars to drive on particular roads at particular times.... and blaming the drivers when cars blow up, can't brake, or cause traffic jams on certain roads.
People mostly just want to do email and read the web. We should be providing them software that does this with absolute security.
We are blaming users for faulty software.
Should License Be Required to Go Online?
No, but perhaps grammar skills should be required to work for the Associated Press...
Seriously, this is a terrible idea. This would open up chicken-and-egg problems across the whole range of learning endeavor computers and the internet offers.
The analogy of needing a license to drive a car is used repeatedly in the article, but I think that's not quite the right analogy; maybe requiring you to know how to rebuild an engine before you ever drive would be more accurate. One of the expectations mentioned is that you must know how to set up a firewall; is this really realistic to require before any unsupervised on-line time?
The internet is growing because it's accessible, reasonably. If I needed a license to buy a book, I might never have started reading--and a book is a more accurate analogy than a car.
Put the responsibility for viruses where it belongs, on the network admins and software vendors, not the newbies. Everybody's got to start somewhere.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Namaste
You mean the "Internet Driver's Licence" isn't a real licence for that there Interweb? Bugger, now I have to take it off my resume.
In fact, this is not only impossible, but unrealistic and rather terrible. Why? Because there will be absolutely no practical way to enforce, encourage, or even suggest uniform "rules" (whatever they might be) in every country around the world.
The article plainly says that we are continually exposed to junk mail, viruses, etc., and this would help to eliminate such things, but one of the reasons that such nuisances exist is because there is no single governing body over the internet. As much as I'd like to see this idea take off and clean things up, I think it will never, ever fly.
To drive a car
to fly an airplane
to use any radio transmitter beyond minimal power walkie-talkies, cellphones or 802.11.
All these things are done to help enhance the safety of everyone using the medium.
The signal to noise ratio of the Internet (maybe I oughta make that noise to signal) is typical of things which are totally out of control...
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
In school, we have a contract stating thatwe must only use the internet for education, as a result, they loaded up X-Stop from 8e6 technoligies, and prohibit us from many required educational sites. They lock the rest rooms during lunch, they inhibit innocent people from eatting lunch, they are a totalitarion government that needs to be reformed ever 40 years. And isn't it due now? For a virus on computers or hacking, you have to pay for every system compromised, then fix it.
Karma: Good, or bust!
...but this is the dumbest suggestion I've heard in a long time. A security expert recommends more security. Shocking. News at 11.
Which includes lessons on how Windows(R) with its WindowsUpdate(TM)(C)(R) is more easy to secure than Linux and even UNIX!
And you thought the evolution in schools issue was a flamefest...
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
...and I suppose this means that all the illegal immigrants coming over to California for driver's licenses and free-lunches at community colleges will be the firsts to get e-Licensed? Woo-hoo, way to build up the economy! :/
Fine ISPs monthly for not converting to IPv6. It will make it actually possible to trace the people who create the viruses, at least within the US.
Considering our current foreign policy, we should also bomb countries who don't start a similar program of taxation.
Damn! There I was, putting my finishing touches on my "+5 insightful" comment and BAM! the discussion is ended!
oh well... there'll be other threads...
and i suppose M$ would be issuing these licenses?
... i hope
this idea is so full of moron-holes i can't even
summon the energy to describe them
i just hope the lot of you die from chronic idiocy
or from choking on your own vomit
i hope
in a world without hope
THIS
I read the article and found that it contained no interesting, useful, insightful or intelligent points whatsoever.
you won't be able to surf while under the influence. ;)
what will the slashdotters do?
by self-righteous geeks to lord themselves over the inferior masses. I propose a different test: Everybody who endorses this idea be given one week to get a date with a reasonably intelligent, not-awful-looking female. If you don't pass, you get booted from the net. All the nerdboys would fail it and FINALLY we wouldn't have to put up with their cocksure whining anymore.
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Send people to school on it? Perhaps I have misunderstood what "the September that never ended" refers to.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ever wonder what the people involved with Arpanet would have to say about this? If I was involved in the birth of the internet as we know it.. I'd be questioning the motives for doing it in the first place.. Aside from initially being a military project I am talking about the people who adapted it to the public. As in university folk.
Just take a look at where we are now. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
....move along....nothing to see here....
Freedom, isn't that one of the things that the internet allows. Freedom to information, freedom to anonymity, freedom to do whatever you want!
The internet also allows basically anyone, of any age to use it, and reaps it benefits. Obviously proxies and filters should be applied to younger aged net surfers, but only to protect them from age inappropriate material.
The internet is also supposed to be an easy way to get information fast. Requiring a licence removes freedom, makes it more difficult for younger people to access the internet and makes a lot of work for everyone(are we gonna have some kind of internet DMV or something??)
4B4556494E
Um, yes. I'm proud to be a Bachelor of Mouse-Clicking.
From considering that maybe companies like Microsoft should be held liable for knowningly shipping an insecure product?
The last thing I want to see is the software be subjected to the same liability/litigation as the aerospace industry, but I don't believe a EULA should protect a manufacturer from not fixing a product that is inherantly secure.
The question we need to ask ourselves, "Has Microsoft knowingly done nothing to fix a security hole?"
Nah! Let's just legislate RTFM!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
When we, the technologicaly elite, make our OWN network, based on encrypted tunnels on the existing infrastructure - then we can choose what level of certification is required to interact with peers.
I'm serious.
Don't Tread on Me
Perhaps we should require a license for AP writers. Or Windows programmers.
The internet. Providing access to the ideas of ignorant fucks since 1969. Over 99 billion ignorant ideas served, laughed at, ridiculed, and shat into oblivion.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
I meant this comment as a joke. I'm a Libertarian! Don't tax email!
If a computer and its operating system is meant for the average consumer and it is more difficult than a VCR to use properly, then something is wrong with the computer and its operating system. Not the consumer.
... but time and chance happeneth to them all.
This will help poor people stay a whole lot poorer. The course will cost money. Poor people will not be able to afford the course. Poor people don't go online. Poor people miss out on education, school related studies, employment searches, etcetera. Poor people get less opportunities. Who thinks these ideas up? Republicans?
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Yes, Licenses and Money for everything.
Licenses and Money to watch TV
Licenses and Money to listen to radio
Licenses and Money to be in public
Licenses and Money to have children
Licenses and Money to read Slashdot
Licenses and Money to be able to talk to people who think they are smarter and better than we are
Licenses and Money to eat 3 meals a day
Licenses and Money to be able to sleep in a bed
Licenses and Money to get an education
Licenses and Money to travel
Licenses and Money to dream of a future free of Licenses and Money
Licenses and Money to commit suicide to escape all of the Licenses and Money
Might as well get one for a gun, and hunt down the people who support this :)
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
Hi, Slashd0t, I have been receiving emails saying that I'm contributing to the "moral decay of society" by selling the Banned C D. You can track down old flames from college, or you can dig up some dirt on your boss to make sure you get that next promotion! Or maybe you want a fake diploma to so you can surf the net.....
Just had to get that off my chest. :)
The major problem that I see is that over the past years the Internet and computers have been intentionally made so as to be used by anyone with nothing more than "point and click" skills. This is turning out to be a double edged sword. On the one hand, it opens the world to the casual user, and on the other hand, does not challenge the user to learn more about what they are doing online.
I've always believed that education is the key, and where do we start? There should be a multi pronged approach, with computer manufacturers, Internet Service Providers, and third party site's and software vendors all pitching in to educate the "Joe Average" user.
Rather than a "license", why not have a system built with an integrated skill level. As the consumer uses their system, build in a tutorial that if answered correctly, takes them to the next level. With a web browser, this could be that the first time the browser is loaded, the consumer would get a short tutorial automatically, and have to check off a few simple questions in order for the browser to then access the Internet. With other software, it would be simple to set up the same type of tutorial. Email could be set up to give a tutorial with some hints as to not downloading certain files, basic antivirus and trojan/worm information, etc.
The ISP's should have a good basic education package for their new signups. Some do, most do not, all they care about is getting a new signup.
Third party sites such as ours are designed to educate the user in a particular aspect of Internet usage, and it is a vastly under utilized area. We'd like to see more fundamental sites covering the basics. You'd be surprised at how many hits our Help section receives every day, and the emails we get from people asking questions, or just complimenting us on having it available.
Software vendors could build in a tutorial, rather than be optional, it would not allow the program to function unless the user at least had an overview of the particular program. Everyone makes fun of the "Video Professor" type of tutorials, but how much better would it be if all users had to use that kind of a system before being allowed online.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
The point I think our OP is trying to get at here is that people have been talking about forcing licensing for all manner of things, from Internet licensing to licensing for having a baby.
The solution isn't licensing, it's education. Education isn't something that is achieved through licensing, it's learned through a concerted effort to make people aware of the problems. Licensing only achieves getting people aware of knowing the answers to a test.
Be gentile in your responses, I read what he said, and he's just sort of hypothesizing, he's not really advocating.
Now that is goddam funny.
I second it!
Oddly enough, in England (and perhaps other countries of the UK), you need a license to own a television set. The government even has special trucks that detect intermediate frequency emanations so that they can find illegal TV receivers!
to threats of fines for spreading viruses
Are they not already imprisoned, at least in the US?
Vonal Declosion
Lets take the most open, free, and accessable medium in the history of all humanity and make sure the government controls who can access it. Woohoo! :(
This brilliant idea would
go well with their (the UK) video camera's
perched on every street top and
litterally all through out downtown
London.
Don't even get me started about
the Chinese; someone in their
government would probably get
a woody if they heard of this
nonsence.
License This IP!
Get rid of fucking WINDOWS! Damn!
Windows is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM with computers and the Internet now.
The number two problem is stupid people. Most people have zero concept of what's happening when they click the mouse. They should be using computers on the internet anyway, like drunken bums with TB they bang around the net, spreading germs and disease where ever they go.
Get rid of windows, period and forbid stupid people from going online period and most of the problems will go away.
Seriously, I've sat down and talked to people about security on their systems and they look at you like a puppy that just woke up from a nap. They are clueless. Most of them deserve to have their shit hacked and info ripped off and CC #s jacked, just because they are so freaking dense. One old man I talked to, numerous times, about security leaves his M$ box on 24/7 and his cable (used to be DSL) modem on all the time.
He buys stuff on the internet all the time and it just thrills him and befuddles him into silly bliss that he can click "add to my cart" then "check out" and UPS is knocking on his door a few days later with his book, video or whatever.
No matter how many times I tell him to turn the damn modem off when he's not using it, he just won't do it. He claims his "guru" friend takes care of his computer for him. His "guru" friend is an idiot, I've met him, he's a mouth breather.
Stupid people + M$ spells computer/Internet constipation...
a nation-wide ID system. Might be crowded if you have to take a drivers test as well as an internet test at the same time; but I'm sure that can be ironed out somehow. Maybe by having different certifications such as we already have for driving.
license to use the phone?
license to use the snail mail?
license to speak?
Ok, that's gross exageration. But seriously, isn't it a little bit unfair to saddle the users with the problems of the Internet providers? (lazy admins, poor ISPs, unsecure SW vendors).
It's kinda like requiring a rally-enduro driving course for a driver's license instead of patching the potholes.
To be able to create color schemes this ugly! Seriously, reddish brown and dark yellow do not mix! Ugh..
People should need a license to have children, not to surf the internet.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
A license to go online....only if we require one for nose picking or running for office...
They pay people to come up with sort of thrum?!? No, really? I'm amazed. So, does this imply that it takes a bunch of daft script kiddies to induce mental ruptures in "CHIEF" technology officers of security firms?
Ok, so realistically, this bloke has realized that there is no such thing as a secure system, he's lost his grounding, he's grasping at anything....he needs a career change...
Oh well, funny that one can take daft suggestions from the likes of politicians, but when some supposedly educated or knowlegable individual comes out with this kind of cruft...you get my incredulous reaction...
I would have to concur with the others, this story seems to have been posted to cause flaming within the slashdot community. I wish that these types of "stories" ie, taxing email, paying per meg of downloaded content, etc. would be a thing of the past for sites like slashdot, but I guess anything that brings in the ad revenue :(
n/t
a license to go outside?
that way all the criminals will be indoors.
Knock on the door.
"Please open up. We have reason to believe someone inside is online without a license!"
The license can't just be a smartcard, or everyone will just leave theirs in the slot so family and friends have access - and likely put the whole crew and half the wireless neighborhood on NAT behind them. So we're going to have to build biometric security into every potentially Net-connected device.
That will surely get the Dept. Homeland Security Seal of Approval. Let's have Microsoft build it so it really works!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Do I really need to explain why this would be inevitable with some stupid plot like this. Mod article down -1 flamebait
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
This is so ridiculus I can't imagine anyone ever thought of it. Not only would it be a content management nightmare, but you've got to realize... The internet isn't just in the U.S. of A! It's also part of the whole rest of the world! What about the people who live in south africa, who want to access the internet? Will they be forbidden to because they don't have a "Four-year college degree"?
International implications aside, what would happen if someone were able to hack into the database being managed? Millions of internet user's information would be compromised.
Even if you consider mandatory computer education, how much time would have to be spent? The computer users who are the people who would need the education, for the most part have real lives. They do not have the time to think and learn about something which is incredibly new and would probably take quite a long time for many people to learn. The fact is, the operating system that is most common, Microsoft Windows, does not assume that the user is an idiot. By default, it gives them complete, unfettered access to the entire system. This makes it MUCH easier for viruses to take over control of system processes (Read: trojans), and allowing viruses to have such a widespread affect with VBS. Now, other operating systems would probably have similar issues if they were the most used. There's no denying that. However, Microsoft in general has the attitutde that they should not be responsible for their users. What they have already done is in the past. There isn't much we can do about it, since the effects will be with us for some time. However, the one real step they could take is to make a "Dummy User" mode. This means, that any script being executed, any system level process that is instantiated, would have an attention-grabbing window that the user COULD NOT simply click away from, that would detail what is going on, and if the user really wants to do this. If measures like this had been taken, we would have avoided much of the problems we have today, especially with email viruses. I'm not a professional engineer, so I don't know many details, but I feel that this fact should be obvious: There are people who do not want to learn about computers. These people need a user mode that assumes this, and will walk them through their experience of computer usage.
It's about time this idea got some press. We have way too many idiots bogging down the internet with porn and piracy, preventing others from using the internet for its intended purposes. Instead of bettering humanity as a whole, the internet has become a breeding ground for perverts, thieves and scam artists off all forms.
Better still, it might be more important to require a license to own a computer to start with. In the early days, you needed to have some kind of understanding of how things work under the hood of your machine in order to get your money's worth out of it. Nowadays, any idiot with $200 can walk into walmart, walk out with a computer and become a massive drain on the rest of us who have some clue what we're doing.
Either way, maybe it'd cut back on the script kiddies, spammers and porn addicts we have that keep bringing the networks to their knees.
8==8 Bones 8==8
If you aren't a good driver, you will kill someone. If you don't know how to use your own computer properly, you will wreck your own computer, There is a HUGE difference. You don't hurt anybody by not knowing how to use your own PC.
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
(i.e. who's behind you) and lose your license
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
I work tech support. In fact, I work two tech support jobs. I'm paying my way through University the best way I can. Easy answers for stupid users. Few bucks over minimum wage and you're golden.
Wouldn't want to see tech support go. It's not fair to those who don't see it as a career. It's the perfect job for people like me.
The flip side of that: The users definately appreciate it.
correct me if I'm wrong, but you could kill someone if you drove a car and you didn't know how. However, if you can't use your computer, you'll just end up getting a virus and a thousand junk emails. No one has ever hacked or written a virus by mistake. Also, comparing the internet to driving will result in a resurgence of the term "information superhighway," and that's just wrong.
Jungle Love
... I wanna file my nails.
Morris Day and the Time
Oh-wee-oh-wee-oh!
I, I've been watching you. I think I wanna know ya.
Said I, I'm a little dangerous. Girl, I'd love to show ya.
(chorus)
My jungle love, yeah. I think I wanna know ya.
Jungle love. Girl, I'd love to show ya.
You, you've got a pretty car. I think I wanna drive it.
I ain't playin', said I drive a little dangerous. Take you to my crib, rip you off.
(repeat chorus)
Come on baby, where's your guts? You wanna make love or what?
I wanna take you to my cage, lock you up and hide the key.
You only get water, baby. Cuz if you're hungry, take a bite of me.
(repeat chorus)
I think I wanna
(repeat chorus)
Jungle love, that's right. Can't nobody fuck with me?
I got a bearskin rug, I got a fireplace too.
And I'm all the way wild baby. All the things I could do to you.
Jungle love. Yes! That's it. Ha haa!
Of course we're blaming the users. The users choose to purchase PCs running Windows.
When people choose to buy Pop-Tarts, microwave them, and then eat them, we feel they have nobody to blame but themselves for the burns. Yet somehow when they buy Windows, ignore the safety directions that tell them to keep up to date with software updates, and hose the Internet, everyone seems reluctant to blame the idiots.
Windows is not necessary. I've never purchased any Microsoft software, and I'm doing just fine. In my view, anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get. It's not like it's some big secret that Windows is full of bugs, hard to use and unreliable--just read any PC magazine, or look at the shelves full of books like "1001 Windows Annoyances" and "How To Get Out Of DLL Hell".
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I've always thought of my computer as a tiny house. It has a happy little penguin in it that opens and closes application windows for me, and all my junk is moved around just the way I want it. The internet is like my door to the outside world (of my hypothetical computer-house). I should not need a lisence to go there, because I've been through all the crappy stages of childhood when my parents had AOL sucks-point-"o" or whatever and gave me the kiddy access. Reports on breast cancer cannot be done with AOL on kiddy mode. Anyway- kids are controlled by their parents, so they shouldn't need lisences (but they should have responsible parents). Adults who get attacked by viruses are usually idiots. That's all I can really say. I never open strange emails from people I don't know saying that I won a contest on the internet. I don't click on flashing "you win!" GIF animations, and I don't run "execute" files thinking they're video files! I can see how you might be struck by a virus that came from your friend or such, downloading their attatchments, trusting them, but having a lisence will cannot prevent that. TIP: Don't use Outlook! It's riddled with security holes and bugs. Better TIP: Don't use Window$! It's riddled with security holes and bugs, AND you don't even have root access to your own computer (try uninstalling I.E. some time). PS: if you don't know what root access is, you are using Window$: stop it.
Esoteric reference.
What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Taxing things at a price that doesn't precisely reflect its negative costs to society, if any, makes the pie smaller for everyone.
If you don't want email at zero marginal cost, then feel free to start your own "premium" service that does charge you, and everyone else, and runs on a private or pseudo-private network.
Taxing should be the last refuge because it is such a blunt instrument.
--
The user is never at fault for poor software, especially closed source crap the user can't fix if they could or wanted to fix.
Virus checkers, email restrictions, firewalls and all that are in vain when faced with the reality of closed source distribution. I work for a small computer shop. The only software we can put on all the broken computers that come in for repair is the user's original software and any updates M$ lets you. The vast majority of computers out there run EOL'd systems like 95 and 95. Customers lack the skills needed to diagnose the problems or do the best fix, a wipe and reload. It cost them about $75 if they have all of their software, and they are loath to pay for the time it takes to load up all the patches and updates that won't protect them from next week's worm. I can't blame them for feeling that way. Nor can I blame them for wanting to email their friends. Those that have lost their software generally end up throwing their machine away or go find some nasty cracked copy of M$ shit because they don't want to spen the $109 and equpment purchase needed for an OEM copy of Windoze. The net result is the same in every case, boxes that are just as easy to bust as the day they were made. But, so what? Even the dilligent are getting burnt.
I have recomended Mozilla for people who absolutly must have M$. My little brother told me that an XP update broke Mozilla and made it terribly slow, but Netscape still works. Woot.
I'd recomend Debian or Red Hat and sell CDs for the same price as a driver disk, but my boss is worried about support. I'm not sure what kind of "support" could be worse than the mess most Windoze users now find themselves in. Still, he's the boss. The day, however, I can make money doing it, he's going to like it. I'm starting to think that the store's usual $4 per CD burnt and the 30 minutes it takes to install a dual boot of any linux system might be cheaper fixing Windoze. Blinding the windoze side to the network makes it last longer so that it can do the things it does well for the user.
I'm starting to see the path of least resistance here. Demo the system with Knoppix to prove hardware use. Blind Windoze, dual boot and set them loose. Actually doing something beats the hell out of bitching and moaning. It can work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... they get around to requiring breeding permits.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
That would give us just what we need...another government agency.
If you're a white male and own land you should be allowed to go online as well as vote
Bruce should go fist fuck himself in his own elitist asshole.
The central problem here is that what makes the Internet so great, that there is no central controling authority, is also its downfall. Allowing total annonymity would mean that hit-and-run hackers would be impossible to trace, and the network will fall apart.
The Internet is not really supposed to be one network. It's supposed to be the network-between-networks where each network is supposed to have its own admin responsibile for controling what goes in and out. If somebody on the network is sending out a virus, it's supposed to be the responsibility of the network admin to displine the misbehaving user so the problem gets contained.
But now, the ISPs of the world don't seem to care much about keeping their own networks virus-free, and there's nobody above the ISPs to force them to do their job.
I really think the Internet as we know it will be replaced by another network within the next 20 years. The replacement network will be Internet-like in that it connects multiple providers, but would have authenticated sender-identifying information intrisic in its protocols, so spoofing in all its forms would be killed at the first router it sees outside of the spoofer's control. The orignal protocols like SMTP and FTP were all based on being on a network where everybody played fairly... and clearly that's not the case anymore.
I don't think we need a license for users as much as we need requirements that ISPs crack down on virus-spreaders on their network as much as they crack down on Spammers...
I think that perhaps there should be a license to post content, or perhaps there could be a license to post on forums so that way forums could be a much more civilized place.
As a tech support drone, I have to say that the second people have to have the slightest idea what the hell they're doing in order to get online, I am out of a job. So, no.
Y'know, you'd be taken a bit more seriously on the topic if you didn't have a long history of complete foam-at-the-mouth knee-jerk highly-emotional dropped-on-your-head-at-age-two-by-Bill-Gates Microsoft bashing. I reckon you're the only one over the age of 14 on this board who still writes "M$." Why would we take you seriously?
Is that in order to get affected by these newbies screwing up, you have to screw up yourself. .exe file? Why the F**K is your Administrator password set to , convenience?
Got infected? Forget Bob accidentally sent you a virus and his missing scanner, where the hell is YOUR scanner? For that matter, why are you opening that
You run an ISP and your customers are all idiots who let worms run around willy-nilly? Force everyone who uses your service to buy a router off of you, and disconnect them if you find them running without it or an equivelant device.
The last thing we need is government regulation.
Because it's not very interesting. 5% of the new Windows 2003 machines were running linux before, but 50% or more of new linux machines were running windows before... And there are not even any stats on Win2k to compare to, so we don't even know if 5% reflects an improvement or not. I'm not trying to be rabidly pro linux here, but I don't think MS is gaining ground in the server arena overall, and there is nothing in this news to change that opinion. Go over to OSNews.com.... they're discussin it there.
My first reaction: And next we have a liccens to read and write.
Second reaction: Great a liccens....
So we'll have an Internet full of MCSE who know they need to download the latest patches and won't.
Or will it be more like the lawyers who invented SPAM as we know it today?
Then I read the Slashdot forums....
A fine... I can live with that.
We could have classes just like we have driving classes but the liccens shouldn't be anything more than an Internet account.
Simply make it a manditory rule that all ISPs must charge a sign up fee (the ISP keeps the fee it just has to be uniform so people can't skip to annother ISP) and if they break the rules they lose the account and get to find annother ISP.
I'm sure ISPs will go for it as it reduces user churn. I know AoL would love that.
What AOL won't like is that this will also kill freebe trial accounts and AOL CDs.
They'll probably lobby a loophole.... grrrr
I don't actually exist.
The only thing anyone should need a license for is trying to impose their crazy ideas on an otherwise happy, free society.
To ride in a car
to be a passenger in an airplane
to use a radio receiver
to drive farm machinery (bigger and heavier than a car)
Anyway, if we're going to start licensing users shouldn't we first license developers? Did that tighten some sphincters? It should. This guy ought to be working for Poindexer and crew for homeland security or some such fascist thing instead of ranting about users.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Forget about car analogies and "cleaning up the web" for a minute and THINK about this... In order to have a license, your license has to have some kind of identification built in (like your photo-id on your driver's license.) This is so that when you break the law, they can find out who you are and punish you for it.
Imagine this expanded to the internet. Imagine being forced to be instantly identifiable and traceable 100% of the time... not just non-anonymous (i.e. 'your IP address can be traced') but actively monitored. You get infected with a virus or visit a site which violates local obscenity laws (hint: All pr0n sites) and you are instantly identified and fined, or worse. Things like anonymous proxies could be easily elevated to the level of 'false ID.'
What you are talking about is TOTAL internet regulation of the most draconian kind, completing a total surveillance state. No amount of spam emails or viruses are worth that.
People need an Internet Service Provider or University/Business to supply their connection.
The ISP should require people to sign a policy that prohibts sending spam, etc. and allows the provider to disable access if the rules are violated.
In other words, leave things as they are....
Why is the automatic knee-jerk reaction of some people to start placing restrictions and bureaucracy on things? Let's look at licensing for a sec:
- The internet is based on the free exchange of ideas between everyone - even those that I proclaim idiots. Many of these people have differing views on how things should be set up, what hardward/software to use, etc. Someone has to administer this license, and this just begs for abuse of power.
- Many of the affected in the latest virus round were technical corporations. These are big places filled with lots of really smart (or at least well-educated, which is not synonymous) people. One of my fellow engineers got nailed by Slammer, because he forgot to patch one of our systems that sits in a corner (and somehow the damn thing got through/around the firewall). These people would easily get internet licenses, but they still forget about machines or otherwise screw up.
- This is a bureaucratic solution (more paperwork, etc.) to a problem that either a) is purely technical in nature (buggy software) or b) isn't a problem but rather just the way things are. The last thing we need is more paper-pushers pushing paper rather than actual people solving the actual issues.
For pete's sake, this has to be the most elitist article I have seen recently. Because Mr. Schneier knows what to do to keep his computer uninfected, let's blame the users and force them to be certified to be online.
Idiot.
How about blaming the actual target, the operating systems and flawed web standards that allow this. Look at certification authorities, browser, and OS vendors. I saw one of those hidden install ActiveX objects recently that has a Thawte signature. Why? Well, that CA's root cert is preloaded in IE so therefore, the signed ActiveX will install without any user intervention with default security settings.
What is wrong with this picture?
The problem was flawed assumptions at the outset. Microsoft assumed the Internet environment would remain benign, as it was in the early days of commercialization. Therefore, security was not a consideration. This has proven utterly false. The CAs figured they were in the business of printing up certificates for money. Check on the reliability of a vendor? Why, that would cost too much...so what are certificates and signing really worth? Not a whole hell of a lot. Yet we tell people to trust their money and credit card numbers to this intrinsically flawed system of 'trust'.
We, in IT in general, really need to reconsider all these flawed assumptions we have made and the bill of goods that has been sold to the general public. I have been doing end user support for 15 years now and I would be all too willing to blame this on the user. In this case we cannot. In the end, we have to realize it is not their fault. It is ours. We assumed things would stay the way they were, and they haven't.
Now let's fix it...invalidating the entire CA model and delegating that function to the government would probably be a good start. Have all certificates emanate from a government source or be considered invalid. That might actually work.
While we are at it, let's get the government involved in regulating operating system software in a formal fashion. Sure, I like the private sector and all, but it hasn't worked, has it? We have this huge security mess. Perhaps a greater degree of regulation is required to get us out of this mire, because market forces aren't going to fix the fact that Microsoft's operating system is woefully inadequate for today's Internet and most probably cannot be fixed while preserving backward compatibility for a meaningful number of applications.
The last two paragraphs were just ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure others could be arrived at, and better.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
It is so true that the level of behavior and conversation is far better on amateur radio bands than on CD radio. Part of that has to be because an amateur radio license is achievement based with testing. It's probably a more intelligent gene pool as well. So it is tempting.
But I like a little anarchy. And, let's face it, the internet is still sufficiently confusing to a large percentage of the population to keep them away.
Attn: Bruce Schneier
Chief Technology Officer
Counterpane Internet Security Inc.
Dear Mr. Scheier,
Bite my glorious golden ass!
Yours truely
A concerned bonehead
So, by your logic, if a woman gets gang raped and beaten to death, its her fault because she should've worn her burka and not gone out of the house unaccompanied by a male relative. Red-blooded, honest men cannot control themselves from the intoxicating effects of nearby females, and she should've known that!
Yeah, right.
There is something more urgent, a license to vote. "...It could be a four-year college degree, a one-month course.". Then maybe we will have less morons elected by morons. And also a license to have kids and...
But wait, if its what "Bruce Schneier" wants why not just go to live in China instead of changing the laws here?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Are they planning on making everyone in the world take a class before they can use the internet?
Of course not! Most countries wouldn't comply even if they did.
The problem is software companies don't know how to make their software safe for users who don't know what the fuck they're doing (which is a very large portion of computer users).
Have you tried Linux yet?
I think you're making the typical and uniquely european assumption that the internet can continue without its' core routers and datapoint --all of which are stationed in the USA.
Here's news for you Moscow Mike --it CAN'T.
Without america powering the internet, you'll be able to do FUCK ALL WITH IT.
Don't forget that other typical and uniquely European assumption, the one that sez "let America Build It, Buy It, Design It, and/or Take a Bullet For It, and when all the blood, sweat, tears, and expense part is done, call it "global" and demand that we "share."
The ancient Romans and the 19th Century Brits had the right idea...
The main reason (yes, there are many others) why this idea is completely preposterous is that the Internet is not a public resource. The government doesn't have any right to 'protect' it, because nobody has a right to use it in the first place. If you don't want to get online because it's too dangerous, well then you just don't want to get online, do you? The Internet is just a bunch of people communicating using resources that they either own or pay to use. You don't have a right to internet access, or a right to find the internet useful for your purposes, anymore than you have a right to have a telephone line. If you want one, great, pay somebody to give you one.
Sure, it might be funny to JOKE about a lisence required to access the internet... but isn't a good idea.
The internet is a place of free information exchange, or at least should be in theory. We shouldn't limit who has access based on their current knowledge.
It is unfair for a normal web surfer to be forced to take network security classes just to browse.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Idiot.
Indeed.
How to read the article:
(1) Click the link.
(2) Read.
(3) Scroll down when necessary.
Following this simple procedure, you will find the entirety of Schneier's wry little quote, which I will copy and paste here (instructions on that omitted) for your benefit:For those of you following along at home, I'd say that with "everybody you know won't be able to have a computer anymore", he is suggesting he doesn't actually think it's such a good idea.
You're right though -- software does suck, and we shouldn't blame the users for what is mostly the fault of the software industry itself.
He seems to have provoked the speculation, which is irrational and wrong. The press will run with stuff like that, and some politician is going to read this and think it is a good idea.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
So yahoo is trying to out do the onion.
The protocols used on the web were not designed to deal with hordes of incomptetent and/or malicious users. They were designed for collaboration. It's clear that the net is getting worst and worst every day. I say it's time for new protocols:
The most urgent, IMHO, are e-mail and usenet with built-in encryption and authentication.
Some areas of the net could remain gray areas, to preserve certain anarchic qualities that we appreciate about the net, but they should be bandwidth limited to preserve quality of service for the new better protocols.
One wonders what percentage of backbone bandwidth is gobbled up by spam, advertising, worms and other unsollicited traffic. Anybody have a figure on this? If I''d have to guess, I'd go with a 30 to 50% crap factor (excluding this post)
--- Worst tagline ever.
I've talked to too many people who've said, "I don't need to bother securing my home system because I've got nothing anyone would want." I've answered, "They want to use your machine to attack me." But the message doesn't sink in.
While these end users are being provided with crap systems, there is a market out there. If their choice of bad systems gets them severly spanked, they will start making demands of their providers.
All it would take would be a couple of high profile cases.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
One thing which I haven't seen mentioned is how you would license a 3-year-old child. Anyone with small children and a computer is likely to understand that children at this age are already capable of using the computer to learn. Educational software is an existing market.
"Grown-up" software has moved into the online realm because of the opportunities it offers in improving the user experience and program functionality. I would not be surprised to start seeing children's software do the same, although we're not there yet. Plus, children are learning more advanced topics at younger ages (well, at least some children are, Apple IIe anyone?) and it only makes sense for this to continue. I learned about modems, BBSes, and online research when I was maybe 8? Whenever 386s were top-of-the-line.
Also, what exactly does going online mean? If I pop in a DVD, it might take me to a web site. If I install some game software, it might register over my Internet connection. If I type www.dizney.com instead of www.disney.com, am I in trouble? Does using a computer now require a parental lock-out password to prevent unlicensed children from sending any packets over the wire? How does that work if my child's home directories are stored on a file server that is also my DNS server? Does the password and its behavior live on the file server?
What must use the highest standards of safety and security. This can only be insured by regulation and licensing.
The history of other industries shows us that people's freedoms have limits and the government is the appropriate mechanism to express those limits.
And it would solve nothing. How many already 'licensed' network admins succumb to the latest worm/trojan/virus floating around?
How many 'licensed' motorists are the cause of fatal crashes?
What about enforcement? Would you require users to identify themselves by some sort of ID? Who would police the network and with what money? How would you make people feel safe with identity concerns?
How/would you segment the Internet from nations that don't allow licensing? Wouldn't it be unfair to require some people to be licensed while others do not?
The internet is lake any other megalopolis. Existing in such a populated community means you will catch some illness eventually, and every once and a while some big bug will start spreading. All you can do is take the 'vaccines' and take care of yourself.
elitism
Music the Paint dancefloor the canvas your body the brush
The real problem is that getting on line is too easy for the average person. Much of these problems were far less of an issue years ago when people had to code their own ppp log on scripts or use command line utilities to access the net. The Internet has become too much of a bulk mainstream toy.
One solution for this would be for the real tech savvy people to move to IPv6 and let the average person do what they will on the IPv4 Internet. If going to IPv6 were a stumbling block for most people then it would keep it sufficiently isolated. Instituting new email standards would solve much of the problems with virus transmission. In the standard, forbid executing code (binaries or scripts) in emails by the email client or server.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Sure, let's widen the technology gap between rich and poor further...
Someone please burst this bubble that Schneier is living on, please! I know he's a smart guy and I wildly respect his book on cryptography, but that's it. His views on everything else are just stupid. He should stick to his ivory tower and keep churning out algorithms, not try to dictate new laws or licenses.
Bottomline, yes computer security is important, but it's not so all-consuming as what security experts want people to believe it is. Viruses and trojans are annoying and cause problems, but if people are just more vigilent, then the problem can be contained. **Maybe** the blackout was caused by a worm, but then it's the sysadmin's fault for letting something like that in. 99% Consumers have very little to lose, except maybe some e-mail and some essays and porn...
OH GOD, NO! NOT THAT! LET'S FORCE EVERYONE TO GET A LICENSE TO USE THE INTERNET! We're not guarding fucking Fort Knox, it's just a computer!
Yes, it's just a fucking computer, Virginia, it's not like it's a real, living being!
NOT !!!
Agh.. This slashdot article should be called flamebait. Ya, blame the users because the technical elite are delusional. There is nothing special about computing. Computers are overly complicated, unreliable, user hostile pieces of junk. The technically savy are not helping by pretending that the absurd junk we all go through is perfectly normal and reasonable behavior.
Whose at fault for virus/worm propagation? Well, in the case of IIs and RPC exploits, that would be the vendor. One thing that irritate the hell out of me is that windows keeps a bunch of ports open and there's no way of turning them off. It's MY computer and I can't turn off the useless ports. I mean even microsoft recommends running a firewall.. I need to INSTALL software to TURN STUFF OFF! Not only that but there are remote exploits for the stupid ports. I can't turn off stuff that shouldn't be on in the first place and there's a virus that uses them to spread and this piece of junk is on 90% of the world's computers. This kind of behavior requires a Phd in stupidity.
Who fault is it that updates are not applied? I come from a radical school of thought which goes something like this -> updates are annoying, difficult to apply., they are inconvenient, the bugs they fix are not my fault and they are often avoidable. I don't understand where this attitude of "It's my duty to clean up someone else's error" comes from. Or actually more like "It's my duty to read on-line mags everyday and then be savy enough to update my system every time some programmer writes something in C ". Auto-update makes things slightly better but I know a few users who are wary of updates because they tend to change and break things. Misleading autoupdates are evil. Downloaded real player or media player? What was the first thing you did? Unless you are savy enough to avoid stupid updates updating is scary. It's an unreasonable expectation that users will apply all updates in a timely manner. What really bugs me is when there's an error and it involves a port that I can't close without a freaking third party piece of software. It's insecure by default and even when you turn off as much as possible it's still got a bunch of useless ports open . Microsoft forces me to be insecure. Why hasn't an angry mob of sys admins stormed redmond? There they are, producing millions of little insecure nodes all the while having some of the best computer people on the planet tell them it's a bad idea. They could very well be trying to undermine the internet on purpose because lord knows they have the expertise to not be this stupid.
Email worms - Outlook is evil. The only worms that should possibly exist are the ones that have their own smtp server. These ones can easy be avoided by reminding users that running unknown programs is a bad idea. What would also help is if certain operating systems didn't make it nearly impossible to tell the difference between a document and an app. Or run stuff automatically. What is the point of putting the type of the document in the name if you're not going to show it?
anyway..
Star Trek the next generation once had an episode called contagion in which the enterprise catches a computer virus when Picard reads the logs of the USS Yamato. At the time people said it was silly because you can't catch a virus from a datafile like a ship's log. Not only that but odd things on the enterprise stopped working like the doors and things. Who would wires doors into a computer system? Well, now we know. How is that ship that ran on NT again?
You can/could get a virus from web browsing from zark's sake!
Ugh. I am ranting.. enough of this I'm going to bed.
Granted, 90% of today's computer users do not need a "computer" because they are not a scientist, engineer, or programmer. They should be using some sort of programmable appliance with insertable discs that allow specific and limited functions to happen. Turning a technically handicapped person loose on a totally open programmable highly complex piece of equipment like a computer is fool hardy at best. The odds of this person ever using the computer's full capabilities is nill while the odds of this person screwing up the device or other interfacing devices is high.
But since it is exactly this scenerio that has evolved, making lots of money for the technically inclined groups, especially Microsoft, we have to deal with it. Perhaps this scenerio has evolved this way intentionally?
Highly complex devices sold to the general public should at least have enough protection built in that would keep the users from unknowingly misusing or damaging the device. Of course this would put most computer services companies out of business so it ain't gonna happen.
Full blown high speed computers are being sold to the general public as toys, type-writers, drafting devices, presentation slide makers, game machines, porn downloaders, etc. All of these uses are legitimate uses but should be implemented on a device that is limited to just the required functions, not a full blown computer with an operating system that will happily let the user enter commands that will damage this computer or others. The device should not be user programmable or changeable in any way. It should just perform whatever function the currently inserted disc(s) are programmed for. In short, it is ridiculous to turn an average non-technical person loose on a full blown computer, really dumb. They don't really have a clue about how it actually works and should not be expected to either because it is being sold as an appliance, not the highly complex easily misused device that it is.
There should be two types of computers, one for implementing a programmable task appliance in a completely limited and safe manner, and one for totally open use by programmers, engineers, scientists, etc.
Users should, if anything, be sueing companies like Microsoft and Del for selling them dangerous devices and software.
If licensing ever does become required (and I seriously doubt it), then only those who have a license to use the internet should be required to pay for it. Under the current model, everyone pays to a certain extent through end-user fees, taxes, etc.
If you raise the barrier to entry onto a mediaum, then the responsibility for that medium should rest solely on those who use it.
Frankly, I can't think of a better way to kill the internet than to require a license to use it.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
This is exactly what the world needs, yet another goddamned license. Restricting rights, barriers to access, blah blah blah.
In the eight years that I've been online, I've watched the internet degenerate into a place where rights mean nothing, privacy no longer exists, users being blamed for shitty engineered and overpriced software, lawsuits for doing stuff in the once thought privacy of your home, and a license is supposed to fix that?!? Whatever idiot keeps bringing this sham of an idea about licensing computer users can go buy themselves a SCO Unixware license for Linux along with my worst wishes. Uh, uh. I don't need your stinking licenses.
rant ahead-
./
...Make the license to use the internet only availible ONLINE!
This is a silly and unenforcable proposal!
Many things contribute daily to stopping the problems mentioned and improving the online experience.
Experience is a great teacher too. When someones machine is crippled by the latest and greatest virus they usually try to learn quickly how avoid this in the future. In a company especially you look and feel like a fool if your email is infected and you become savvy QUICK!
The drivers license is an interesting example.
How many people did I observe driving poorly today.. hmm...
How many did you? Add them all up and you still have the same problem.
My wallet is thick enough with licenses and certifications (speaking of the non tech related ones) and personally I hate them all. I'd just like to be recognized as some sort of human w/o stamps and numbers and such.
Still on the personal side i've been actively online since about age 8 (30ish now). I try to get as many kids online as possible. I'm sure many of you out there do the same and I'm also sure that there are many under 10 on
My guess is that if you told them a license was required to access this whole incredible world of neat stuff and they had to get their parents to go along with it and they had to provide credential for everything they would hate the idea and many that would otherwise be contributing and learning alot would not be.
(come on admit that you would steal dad's logon and use it like crazy!)
A license to browse through the largest library?
"May i see your credentials so you can listen or talk in the largest forum?"
Oh and we don't allow any anonymity anymore either.
Maybe we should turn off the net because some people in the class are not playing right.
jeez!
Ahh then there is cost. This would create alot of pointless jobs too. Loads of adminstrative costs. VeriSign would probably lick their lips at the opportunity to manage a $6Trillion service like that... Refresher courses, lobbyist pushing to link more to the logon license than you ever could want, etc. yea!
Then you try to get other nations involved.
How would the missiles launch if they are not licensed to use the net?!?
Most of these problems could be solved by a few public service announcements leading people to the well written info already available. Hell it's the internet give'em video.
I >REALLY< tired of this type of thinking (and i typically respect counterpane). I see it as a bit elitist as well. If you stop treating people like cattle most will stop behaving like them.
Firefox &
I think what is really needed is something to reverse the spread of general stupidity on the Internet. Because email and IM are among the worst possible forms of communication and people are accepting them wholeheartedly, large numbers of people are settling for crappy communication and real communication is suffering. This is demonstrated by people using "2" instead of to or too in seventh grade essays and movie titles.
My personal suggestion is that anyone creating a new acronym or abbreviation should be imprisoned, and anyone using an existing one should be fined.
I guess some people won't be happy until we need government permisssion to do everything.
But that's okay.
We'll call it freedom and no one will know the difference.
I wrote the post you responded to. As I implied, I worked tech support in school too, so I can see it from both sides. Some people (presumably like you) are great, but the majority are as I described.
You catch a cold and you haplessly pass it on. Somebody tells you false rumors and you pass them on. Your wallet gets stolen because of your neglect.
A licence to surf? This has got to scream bureaucracy and regulation to somebody besides myself? Maybe a little empire building here and there? And since we're all getting licences, why not a little computer insurance in case we hit somebody by accident. Cause a little hard drive fender bender, you know... Infact, if you don't have computer insurence AND are caught surfing without a licence, you could get pulled over and face some really stiff fines, let me tell you. SURFING WHILE INTOXICATED!? WHAT?!?
Ok class, can any of us think of any other daily activities that don't require a license but could cause finacial and bodily harm to another> Nah, didn't think so. Why isn't the foot icon next to this story?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Fsck those 4$$|-|013$!!! The internet is for everybody! People in this shit country don't ever want to take responsibility for their own actions or blame the actual wrongdoer. If somebody writes a virus, they try to pull that Big Brother shit. Then they blame the ISP etc. And for Microsoft, don't release buggy shit! Why do you think Linux doesn't have these security holes? The open cooperation of every developer around the globe that cares to help out. So yes, blame Microsoft. if they want you to pay out the ass for software the least they can do is make it secure and safe.
In actually considering legally licensing users to use the internet you totally ignore its sole purpose....complete freedom. The internet is based on the "no boundaries" ideology meaning it can both enlighten and disturb in the same setting. Yes it has it's demons but don't we all. If you're a firestarter then you'll find your place online but most aren't of this persuasion. The average person uses the net for inane, senseless surfing with an indifference to most things of value.
The net can be a the biggest waste of time for plenty of us but it is also the best way to find out most anything you are curious about. With a license one would not be free to explore for fear of being watched even when doing perfectly legal tasks. The single biggest issue is definitely the 4 year degree idea. How fucking ridiculous is that? Most people in the world do not have a 4 year degree much less the money to go to school so how can one discriminate against people of this ilk? How fair is it to hold someone's personal choice or lack thereof against them? If I was a millionaire and didn't need to get a degree because I chose not to then does that mean I am not allowed to get on the net? I'm sure if I was a millionaire I could "donate" to the cause and get my license. That in itself turns the internet into something that it is not...a good ole boys club. Not only do the better off want to buy and impose laws based on profit they also want to turn the internet into yet another cash cow. Just imagine the fees in licensing alone. I'm sure the figure would be staggering.
I can see Microsoft being the sole "sponsor" of the net and you would of course need ms messenger for "secure" access. This thought brings to mind a scene from the movie "Fight Club" where Jack is waxing philosophical on how one day everything, every product, every single form of matter will be sponsored by some multi-national multi-conglomerate. I never saw Jack as being a prophet but it does make me ponder the ramifications of it actually occurring.
The net is about wide open spaces, big ideas, community, freedom of thought, mind, expression, and movement. I left out porn because that would be stating the obvious. If we actually had to have a license and 4 year degree we would be doing everyone who uses the net a major disservice. Even in countries where there is no personal freedom the internet offers what most will never have...freedom to express themselves and speak their minds. I say fuck it...live free or die trying.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Everyday, Bruce Schneier becomes more of an elitist prig with his 'after MSBlaster, I don't think I can handle the unwashed masses anymore...' blather.
Licenses for using the Internet? And this from the privacy/security guru? What a joke.
Maybe Schneier should buy himself a time machine and go back to 1985.
Like having children, buying bullets, etc. I can certainly see it for net usage; I've ranted about people who don't bother securing their junk before. It's annoying as hell.
On the other hand, I rank net usage as a basic right deeply connected with free speech and freedom of information. I'd be willing to regulate a LOT of things before I even touched the internet.
If you did require a license, it would end up like a drivers license...anyone who wants one could easily obtain it. People scream and yell at the number of idiots on the road all the time, and presumably, they have all passed the test. Which goes to show that, like the MCSE, a license doesn't mean crap.
In conclusion, I think it's a bad idea, and I'm glad it will never fly. Can you imagine the poor sap who'd have to go around explaining to people that they're too stupid to use the Internet?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Before users can be expected to have licenses, programmers, systems admins, technicians, and help desk people need to be professionally licensed and held legally accountable to certain standards just as other engineeers, doctors, nurses, etc, are.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
No license required to create a life, but a licensing scheme for the fucking internet is proposed? Those are some odd priorities.
Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
Personally, I think that licences to go online is a completely ridiculous idea. But I can see where the idea stems from.
There are a lot of users out there who continually get viruses on their system, never patch their systems and never update their virus software( Some of my clients think that updating their virus software every year is being responsible!) and ask them what a patch is and they'll reply that it's something to help you stop smoking!.
Unless something changes, these same users will continue to get viruses and will continue to annoy other net users.
I think a better way of approaching it would be to have some form of virus filter at the ISP end. If a user got infected, the filter would turn off their connection ( or limit it to antivirus sites) until they disinfected their system.
I went through a period last year when one user on a major ISP here in Canada was infected with a virus and I was recieving hundreds of infected emails from them every day. I contacted them directly a number of times but received no response, so I contacted the ISP who refused to do anything. If it was set up to turn off their connection upon infection, then I (And everyone else in their address book) wouldn't have had to put up with all the crap that came from the virus.
But if the government wants to impose terms on speech, then I need to buy some guns.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Hell no!
Going online is not a privilege to be doled out by the State. Participation in the collective cyberspace of humankind should be construed as a right, not a privilege. That said, I think it is quite legitimate to hold persons in the cyber community responsible for their actions. But there are many trade offs involved.
But if, God forbid, this is implemented, there will be a cost - not of money, but of other resource and of freedom. For one thing, who is to decide what the test battery will consist of? The FSF? The government? God forbid, Microsoft or SCO? How do we administer this? Do known spammers get denied licensure altogether? (OK, that wouldn't be so bad.) How does this get enforced? How do we adapt this to universal usage?
In short, it would be novel to have a notional "internet license" to show that one knows the difference between HTTP and NNTP, but to have an official license would be the Wrong Thing.
This sig no verb.
Die, you big government big brother panopticon loving technocratic commiefascist eugenicists! Diediediedie!
Damn me but I hate this sort of "you need a licence to breathe" mentality. Haven't these people heard of private property? Or minding their own sodding business? They're the same sort that propose "having-children licenses" - and you know they are just itching to stamp "denied" on the application forms (in triplicate, block capitals only please) of anyone they don't personally like. Such as anyone ho doesn't happily and with smiling countenance kowtow to their nazi "alles in ordnung" ideals.
Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die!
And stay dead.
This world is getting retarded. Plz force companies to take responsibility for the holes in their software. Imagine how much bandwidth money and lost work could have been saved if Windows or any other exploitable software didnt have so many holes.
http://www.futureassassin.com/bill_wuz_here.jpg
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
make everyone get licenses...that'll stop car accidents, drunk driving, driving without insurance, usage of a motorvehicle to commit robbery/kidnapping/murder, trash dumping...
I've seen firsthand how incredibly retarded this policy is. Just forcing people to attend a class or to watch a training video does absolutely nothing. And don't get me started about the censorship, which blocks perfectly reasonable sites but fails to block the objectionable ones.
Litigious bastards
A license to be online is no different than a license to publish a newspaper, or a license to own a xerox machine.
Does anyone thing that's a good idea?
The economically disadvantaged would become unable to access a medium that is characteristically available to them.
Aggrandize the digital divide!
Do you like German cars?
My take on this idea, in the unlikely event that anyone cares, is here.
For God's sake people this article is an obvious troll! This is a stupid proposal and it's completely unworkable anyway. This article is simply published to stir up comment and get publicity and you lunkheads posted it on here which helps them to get it. This idea is just as stupid as requiring a college degree to be a parent, for example, anyone who gives birth without the degree has their child forcibly taken from them etc..
Slashdot You've been trolled!
A license to use the net? I've been using it since 1983. Can I just get grandfathered in and use the thing without a damn license?
Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.
If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.
If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.
People should have to get a license to have kids, not to surf the Internet.
Yeah, I said it.
Hurrah, lets throw up another barrier to prevent needy people from accessing information. Way to help bridge the digital divide. :/
On a more serious note though.... a lot of analogies that compare real world objects or rules don't really work in computer terms.
"A car has to pass an inspection, and a driver has to pass a test," he said. "We need to be moving in the direction that machines are certified in some ways and users are certified in some ways."
I know quite a few people in computer science that gets through the program and receives a degree, and are dangerous unqualified to program. Yet their degree certifies that they've got what it takes to program. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in these pieces of papers that certify that the individual is competent.
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
Like Sailor Moon 184. Something like
Usagi - "I don't have to worry about a thief breaking into my house when I'm all by myself - we've got nothing to steal."
Minako - "Don't be so sure about that...you do have your life."
Similarly, so what if you don't have anything people want on your computer? In fact you do - people can DoS it, or hijack it, or whatever, it's just like a random act of violence.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Should [a] License Be Required to Go Online?
No.
you need a license to go online, yet you don't need one to start a family..how america.
I'll take and pass that test, and then I'll continue to open email attachments because they came from friends of mine...
Giving someone a fine for inadvertantly spreading a virus sounds nice in theory, but what should happen if there's something that cannot be prevented via normal means. What if the OS has some flaw that'll let some virus writer control your system? Should the computer owner be fined? The only ones that should be responsible are the software engineers that allow these types of situations to occur in the first place. Find the virii coders and give them the worst sentence possible.
.smell my feet.
Go ahead and offer classes...
though:
Asault rifles are for keeping the internet (and other things) free for everybody... even morons, so don't restrict it by licensing...
Yet:
feel free to start an authentication service or your own VPN and require whatever you want to access it.
fun with punctuation; yee haw!
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
To shoot your stupid ass.
License for buying bullets?
How about I just beat your hoplophobic ass to a mass of blood and meat. Stupid fucker.
At least I think so. Wait. Do I have a license to think that?
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Just for going online? There should be a mandatory course for using computers at all.
:)
Hey, hey - before you mod "Troll", think about this:
* You can't drive without a license
* You can't operate heavy machinery
* You can't practice medicine
etc.
We already cover most points where people can do damage to either themselves or others with mandatory education. It makes sense, too.
It doesn't have to be "elitest". It can be as simple as driving school in most of the US, where you hop in a car with the local sherrif for 10 minutes and show him that you know which pedal does what.
Of course, computers being more complicated, there's also a different answer. I'll post that in a new reply, so you can mod this one down all you like.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So far, no proponant of taxed e-mail has been able to give me an answer to those questions short of "you shouldn't be allowed to have a server - no civilian should", which I can't agree with for numerous reasons. Don't get me wrong, the tax idea has merits. I just think it's a pipe dream without some government authority getting draconian and ruining a lot of what makes the internet such an open ended learning experience.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
When you think about it, though, it isn't the users fault. Sure, users could be more educated, but why force them?
The machine should be inherently safe. 90% of the people who own computers use it for maybe a dozen tasks or less.
99% of the users have no use whatsoever for the primary virus propagation vector (arbitrary execution of code in e-mail).
The problem is that the computer market is far from mature. We're still in the "oh look, it's shiny and has colours" stage. Features still sell more than safe basic operation.
In a mature market, functionality and simplicity often win out. Good cars sell a lot more than fancy cars. Sure there's niche markets, but I'm talking about the mainstream.
So, maybe we should just wait a couple more years and things will change on their own.
Until then, I propose we simply pass a law that sending me a virus allows me to sue you for $50 in small claims court, no matter if you did it intentionally or not. People would switch to more secure systems faster than you can say attorney.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In order to get a SCUBA tank filled with compressed air you have to flash certification credentials saying that you've the knowledge to use it without killing yourself.
I have dived w/o a lisance for a while now. Yeah, thats right, 70 feet down and I never had one lesson.
I was with a divemaster and other ppl who had gone though all the yada yada bs that you had to do to get your Padi lisance but I never did. And you know what? It really was not that hard.
Oh no! You say that I could have killed myself! Well damn skippy pal. You can kill youself every day by doing any number of things that don't require some sort of bs lisance, and really in much easier ways. Oh, how did I convicnce the divemaster that I was lisanced? Simple, I lied. I told him that I had one, told him however that I was a bit rusty and that if he could give me a quick refresher course that it would be all good. Then I was good to go.
That 1st set of dives was kind of rough yeah, I was learning fast and getting used to operating some equipment that I had never used before but in all reality it was not that hard. To say that you have to have a lisance to do that imo is a load of crap.
However, I am well aware that this planet is populated with a bunch of people that are fscking clueless. If they had tried to do what I did they might have ended up dead or mamed or some bs that would have caused much grief for not only themselfs but everyone that they were involved with. And so we, thanks to the general stupidity of humainity, have to have these lisances on what we consideder dangerous.
So, back to the point. Is being online w/o a lisance of having a clue dangerious? In my, even though I'm posting this as a AC I am no computer/inet noob, opinion hell no. Can you cause harm/be harmed on this open internet invention that was created upon the ideas of free speech and trust, well yeah kind of. But is the level of harm such that we have to have listancing requirements? Can you unplug your computer from the internet and still have a working machine? Of course. Can you install a better browser, or hell maybe I don't know have the powers that be enforce some anti-trust laws to prevent obvious monopolys that crank out rev after rev of software that sucks, charges you for it, and even then gets slimeballs to attack the next best thing?
Ok, I'm going to stop ranting now because I think I've made my point. It's just kind of annoying to have to pay for everyone elses ignorance/stupidity every day of your life and then watch some moron who proably knows even less about computers and life in general (even though they may even be friggen older than me) start screaming that *I* need to be lisanced to do what I've been doing for years just because they are too lazy to get a fscking clue.
...that would fuck the internet over worse than the worms would, actually.
If people should need a license to go online, they should also need a license to put forth asinine proposals.
The biggest problem we all saw stems from a user awareness and user education issue. Most of the punters out there using the Interent see it as being a friendly place that they can go online to have some fun, read their news, look at some porn and generally have a good time. They do not see the internet as the technological equilvalent of walking the back streets of the nearest ghetto at night with your pockets laden with cash and no idea of where you're going.
Until we get the message through to these people that the internet is not a lovely controlled little playground that they can mess around in the longer it is going to take to sort this mess out. The problem is explaning the problem to these people... I came home from work the other day to find that my partner and some friends had logged on to one or two sites of rather dubious nature. As you would expect these sites were full of the usual scripting and ActiveX objects. How do you explain to people that see the internet in the same fashion that they see the TV the dangers of browsing these sites.
Licensing would be great... I have got on my soap box one or two times and said the same thing. Unfortunately it would never fly as the average end user does not understand why they need to be licenced to access the internet. We need to work on educating these people that whilst yes it is possible to have some fun on the internet it is kind of like an electronic representation of the real world. There are the con artisits, the theives, the general "bad" people on the internet just like in the real world. Further just like in the real world where you wouldn't leave your house unlocked you can't leave your computer, or internet connection, unsecured.
Unfortunately most average internet users don't see it this way yet.
This idea is fucking horrible. The problems of the technology on the Internet can be solved with technology. The idea of requiring licenses is contrary to freedom of expression.
The Internet is a communications medium. Want to blame someone for RPC holes? Blame the monopoly - monopolies quality always diminish once they dominate the industry.
When you drive you put yourself and everyone else around you in danger, by forcing people to train you reduce the danger to everyone else. You don't take a driving test to keep yourself safe (or if you do it is a secondary objective) you take it to keep the other drivers safe from you.
This taken into account, because with a computer you don't normally put anyone else in danger I doubt very much some kind of mandatory training program would be helpful or productive in this situation.
And why does his (name?) keep popping up?
I can think of a hell of a lot better things to require licenses for than web surfing.
How about a special license to mow your lawn before noon on Saturday? A license to let your dog out at night to bark his fool head off? How about a license to talk on your cell phone in a grocery line or a license to stick flyers under windshield wipers? If I were king of the planet, I'd require licenses for all those things that annoy people in meatspace before I'd require a license to annoy people on the net. People that think that issuing a license will get rid of annoying people annoy me.
The key differences you indicate are not all that clear cut.
For instance, there is no objective measurement of what is 'reasonable'. What is reasonable is defined by the community where you live in. In fact, under the taliban, it was considered quite reasonable for a woman to wear a burka (if she didn't want to be beaten up or even raped).
As for your second remark: say the taliban would beat up and rape all the female relatives (thus it would impact others) if a woman does not wear her burka (by her neglect)... would this make it her fault, then?
Besides, the point is rather moot: we all know that, even with the best protection possible, a hacker (or cracker, spare me the discussion) could access a computer and install a worm or virus or whatever. And then I (or owner of the puter) should be fined? I don't think so.
One could, again, claim 'reasonable' precautions...but, again, what is reasonable, and who will decide? It seems to me it would be unreasonable to expect a dirt-poor, illiterate sheepherding 'untouchable' in India, who tries out the village computer for the first time, to be uphold by the same standard as a western network-administrator, for instance. What may be reasonable for the one, isn't therefor for the other. (Generalise that to communities, regio's and countries).
In all likelihood, a worldwide (working) system of fining people that unwittingly propagate virii (?) would not only be unfeasable, but also unfair.
What? You're Anal? Figures.
coming soon to/already on, yOUR desktop/network?:
.compliant. if you think that you are already compliant, & it's somebody else, consider this a chance to rat them out, to gain re-admission to the onLIEn wwwhirled again, (c SourceForgerIE(tm) all rights reserved, you have none).
/.puppets.
.asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID
alert: you've been lax in yOUR paper liesense 'upgrades', you're out.
alert: there's a rumour that you've been badmouthing/lowrating the corepirate nazis, & the naykid furor of the felonious kingdumb, you're out.
alert: looks like yOUR kids have been listening to music again, you're out.
alert: although you appear to be browsing regularly, you've failed to make a purchase recently, you're out.
consider this a chance to stare at your monitor screen, & plan how you can become
etc... lookout bullow. these foulcurrs haven't a clue yet, as to what J. Public can do, once he's peaced off. they live in a tiny wwworld, consisting of only their owned greed/fear based goals. they should get ready to see the light.
we're building a vessel that floats on almost any suBStance.
as to the newclear power/planet/population rescue initiative:
it's all free (as in survival), & available immediately to you/all of US.
as you can maybe already see, yOUR survival/success is not the least bit dependent on the gadgets/combinations of the greed/fear based corepirate nazis, & their phonIE ?pr? ?firm? buyassed
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet (somtimes that means not buying anything, a notion previously unmentioned buy the greed/fear/war mongers). seek others of non-aggressive/positive behaviours/intentions. stop wasting anything/being frivolous. that's the spirit.
investigate the newclear power plan. J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...
truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.
the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.
as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.
EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your
we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.
pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.
take care, we're here for you.
What this really comes down to is content. By licensing people to surf the net, the government gains close control over the internet. Yes, this could control spam (but how many direct mail companies bought their address lists from the DMV?). Yes, this might reduce the number of trojans and virii out there. This also gives the government the opportunity to tell you what software you can and cannot run, how you can run it, and where/what you can surf.
While everone might talk as if security is at stake and spamming needs to die, look at it this way: If you want freedom, you have to be willing to accept the responsibility of it. Things like self-policing (aka neighborhood watch) and protecting yourself (aka the Second Ammendment). An earlier post made a good point about how Linux has fewer security holes because the entire Linux community works together to keep it secure. These are the types of principles that make true freedom possible. People in a neighborhood know that they cannot depend on the cops to protect them from burglars (a cop on every corner is a bad idea), so they form a watch and take care of each other. Rather than going to Uncle Sammy every time we find something we don't like in life or on the internet, we need to find ways of fixing it ourselves.
Yes, I know this turned into a bit of a rant, but I really get annoyed every time I see non-tech people (i.e. The US Government, the RIAA, the MPAA) interfering with tech-based issues.
What do you think?
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
Let me get this straight... MS puts a hole in their operating system the size of Mack truck, and some point-haired professor's response is the ridiculous notion of "licensing" computer users?
Huh?
Aside from the fact that it would destroy any commercial uses of the internet, is politically infeasible, and is just a plain dumb idea, how can they ignore a more obvious (if equally dumb) idea:
Make the OS vendor responsible for flaws in
their product
Oh sure, its dumb, but is a least *practical*.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"Bruce Schneier [wikipedia.org] is one of the top names in cryptography. *Alot* of the cryptographic functions we take for granted today came from his ground-breaking work, applied cryptography [amazon.com]."
What the previous poster probably meant wasn't "a nobody", he meant "practically a nobody". This guy may have a brain the size of a planet, but its not like Bill Gates or some senator suggesting something so dumb.
Now lets be honest, the reason he's suggesting this kind of stuff is he remembers the internet the way it used to be... free of the masses and commercial corruption. And he liked it that way.
If he's so smart, then why would he suggest such a dumb idea to the press? He seems as dumb as a post.
"Windows is not necessary."
... "Load Linux".
Right. Go to Dell (the biggest PC maker), HP/Compaq, Gateway, or Sony. I've probably listed the bulk of the PC market.
There you go...Windows. It *is* required. The machines won't fully function without them. No driver for winmodems, no accelerated video drivers, no ability to play the latest games or Microsoft Office.
Sonny, in the real world, these are the reason people *buy* PC's. Your solution
Please. To talk that way makes you either 18 years old or a foamer. In either case, come back to the real world where people don't want to be a computer technician to use their PC.
I have Suse loaded on this machine, but the installation was anything but trivial, and worse, many interesting and useful programs simply don't work on Linux.
Please. Come back to earth son, and stop spouting nonsense.
a hacker would've circumvented whatever system the knuckleheads would put up to control who's surfing from the pc.
but what's really scary is an electronic id-card required to enable the keyboard and mouse. welcome home, mr orwell, was this what you had in mind when you wrote 1984? and yes, the idea is kicking around somewhere. i'll try to dig it up if anyone's interested.
--v
If they're going to start requiring licenses for stupid things then how about a license to breed?? Less stupid people would mean we wouldn't need licenses to surf.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Come on, noone is going to verify such a licence. If anything, one person in the household will pass and the rest ignore it. Teaching basic computer safety should be part of the general education, as almost everybody that grows up today will be or come in contact with computers.
.exe on irc, and asks you to "test" it, would you run it? Trust me, many would.
Anti-virus - the importance of running one, but also some common sense. Like, if someone sends you an
Automatic patching - seriously, I run an up2date cron job on my Linux box. What's the big fuzz over Microsoft's automatic updates? Your average desktop doesn't have a testbed anyway, so might as well patch when it's available.
Firewall - With anything and everything connecting to the net these days, it's growing less and less useful for Joe Average because there's so many programs, they don't know which are good and which are bad anyway. Not to mention some of the biggest virus sources are web and email (read: Outlook and IE), which are allowed through anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think its a good idea. A bit like driving really - driving without a license is clearly dangerous, and so is using the net. A four year course is a little excessive though, but certain grades are a good idea. "user", "power users" etc.
OTHERS are to blame. Anytime, anywhere a member of a minority fails at something, someone else is to blame.
In short: if you fail at something and you are white, its your own fault. If you fail at something and you are black, the whites are to blame.
"It's not a white mans finger on the trigger." - But they don't understand these simple things.
This is what will appear in the next issue of Crypto-Gram:
A recent Associated Press story about licensing computer users has some people believing that I am in favor of the idea of licensing computer users.
I'm not. Period.
The idea is that users can potentially do damage with their computers, so why not force them to get licenses as we do for automobile drivers. While this is one potential way to deal with the problem of people having default security configurations and not installing their patches, I think that the damage that would do to the Information Age would be disastrous. And that it is a bad security trade-off.
It's interesting that people are taking this idea seriously, though. I think that the computer industry has painted itself into a corner. On the one hand, it has positioned computers as a mass-market consumer item. Everyone should own a computer. On the other hand, they have made computers so complex to administer that you need significant training to do it properly. One of the results of this is bad security, which we're seeing.
But I don't think the solution is to force computer users to be licensed. When I read my quote it's clear to me that I'm not saying that, but I want to correct the impression of anyone who does.
Bruce
If they outlaw gu.. ahh mice,
then only criminals will have mice!
They can have my logitech,
when they pry it from my cold, carpal-tunnel-syndrome , dead hands!
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Cause if I got learn that, to get my Internet license, well, I ain't gonna.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I'm afraid it wouldn't cut down on stupid ideas like the one I'm replying to. So it would really serve no purpose except to let the man take our money and tell us he's keeping us safe from dangourous ideas.
Allow minimal training to operate a system that requires little technical knowledge and has a proven track record of defeating malware.
Require greater training or certification to connect to the Internet with a system that requires extensive configuration or has a bad track record for malware.
Periodically review the malware records to allow for vendors who suddenly "get religion".
Then I realized that ham radio operators have to get licenses in order to broadcast. It's an FCC thing to protect from cluttering up the airwaves, and prevent a kind of "tragedy of the commons," where everybody acting in his own self-interest, ruins it for everyone else. Why should we, as Internet denizens, be any different? We broadcast, receive, communicate in all forms and protocols.
But Internet is not as wide-open as the airwaves; it's a network with collision detection, routers, bridges, hubs. It was designed to be open, and yet inherently self-controlled and -regulated. Originally, all the systems on the Internet were probably better maintained (though less secure) than your average $400 PC with every spamware, spyware, adware, trojan, and virus installed (and there are many of them now).
Overall, I still have to say no. It is:
1) Unnecessary.
2) Ineffective.
3) Would just create more gov't bureaucracy.
4) Would have no effect on Internet users outside the US (remember them?).
5) Completely impractical.
In short, what has the guy been smoking?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
When thousands of lives are on the line, which would never be a good idea for something as distributed as the Internet, come back and make that query again.
Cheers
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Wouldnt it?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
specialization is for insects, so said alan perlis.
but everyone likes to feel so special, unique and peerless.
what is it about neighborliness that makes us nervous?
have we bought into a worldview where only the lonely are fearless?
once, programmers' users were users' programmers.
the community danced around the totem, no mules, to play.
now, fleeced sheep lusers wring separate from pro scammers.
deception and concealment of wisdom still rule the day.
stand apart from users and a programmer goes mad w/ bloat.
stand apart from programmers and a user feels sick w/ doubt.
mad and sick the walls, no longer solid, define the moat
in which all manner of twisted vermin squirm and shout.
so whence the bridge to heal the massive rift?
who will move w/o moving and fight w/o fighting?
what is the future of the digital sift?
where can i get advice to improve on my writing?
You make some Interesting points but I do question one of your major ones.
You seem to indicate that the biggest problem your customers have is the time, knowledge and effort it takes to load patches for Windows and the solution to end this would be to provide them with Debian or Redhat on their computers. If you can't get people to install updates for Windows how are you going to get them to load updates for Linux, OS X, BSD, Amiga, BeOS or whatever the next hot OS is.
Neither Debian or Red Hat are going to be set and forget installs. At some point a home computer user is going to have to load updates for thier OS of choice, if the want to help insure the continued security of their computing enviroment. I think you are setting a bad example by implying to your customers and boss, that by loading Linux they will be forever free of having to load updates or be concerned about security of their computer. Things like that are going to get people burned by the next exploit script for Red Hat or Debian that they are not patched against.
I don't want to take away from the good points of your post. I think you point about Blinding Windows from the Network is an interesting one.
I can't say that I share you're level of rage against Microsoft I do agree that there is a problem with the closed source method of software distribution but I don't think that there is a OS today that is the single solution to all of these security problems. At some point there needs to be a balance between better products both open and closed source and better process and computing habits on the part of all computers users, not just the "stupid" ones. The latter is needs to invlove educating people with the best way to keep their computers up to date with patches, good password practices, good firewall setups, and smart email practices to help protect against spam and other email born threats.
I reckon you're the only one over the age of 14 on this board who still writes "M$." Why would we take you seriously?
Because Eric Raymond is not Bill Gates worst nightmare, people at local computer shops recommending free software is. It's painfully obvious that Microsoft is letting their customers down. Left in the lurch, people are going to fix the problem themselves. I'm not exceptional. There are many others like me, all thinking the same thing. Someone is going to figure out how to make free software pay at the local retail level and then you and your corporate masters will learn a different tune. It will sound something like IBM's current free software song.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How about ISPs proxy everyone by default, and to get
you ports opened you have to take a basic net competency test?
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance." --Corwin Of Amber in CoC
i think a lot of people are missing the boat in talking about the problems users and software vendors cause. because we've had stupid users and terrible software on a lot of PCs for a couple of decades now, and it hasn't been that much of a problem. the problems were localized, and it didn't affect millions of users when your machine went berserk. so blaming the users and software, when they haven't changed much, is pretty pointless.
what's different is the network connectivity. and the people responsible for that are the ISPs. they have the power to localize problems to their local networks, and to go even further and isolate each node to really limit the potential for problems to spread.
it also turns out that the ISPs (i.e., telephone and cable companies) are already regulated (not as heavily as in the past, but that's another issue), and have the wherewithal to do something about the problems. i think the ISPs could setup a system where, as quickly as virus updates are released now, they could install new filters to block the network traffic and email messages from new worms and virii. that's about the only thing that's really going to be effective.
everything else is just rights-shredding and ucita-promoting.
-esme
I don't need a licence to browse the library, do I?
I don't need a licence to go to my local bookstore, do I?
What if I have a cold and you are standing next to me at the bookstore. I'm reading 'Shaven asians' and you your favourite linux magazine. I cough, hold my hand in front of my face, but you do happen to inhale some of my bad bad germs. Voila, you're infected. Big deal.
Maybe not the best example, but things happen, viruses are around, some people hold their hand in front of their face when they sneeze or cough, some don't.
Difference between the internet and real life: online you can walk around with a face mask, out in the street people'll stare at you. Wear the mask, don't wear the mask, it's your descision. I don't need a licence that says I'm able to wear a face mask. My mom doesn't need one. If she'd keep on getting infected with something (online, real life, it doesn't matter) and doesn't know what to do to prevent it, she will go to someone to ask how to prevent those infections. The docter will give her a mask, I'll give her a virusscanner and firewall.
Call me naive, but I still believe people will learn to take care of themselves. It will take a while though. Maybe a month, maybe a year. And there will always be 'newbies' who don't know yet. But they'll learn.
When you learn something by yourself it'll stick. If an organistaion will make you pass an exam when people want to use MSN they'll have to deal with the 'who died and left you king?' attitude.
Let us browse the library without licence.
Please don't mind my spelling and grammar mistakes.
Slashdot reports: "I think people need a license to surf".
/AOL mode = on
/AOL mode = off
And how do most of the slashdotters respond?
ME TOO!!!
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
As soon as something is regulated, the government looks at it as a revenue stream.
Until they finally admit that the blackout was caused by MSBlaster.
People could have surely died if power had been out long enough. Some elderly people NEED air conditioning - not even jusr elderlies, some people will just keel over if they get too hot. Your mom, perhaps, is one of these who would have been affected in such a way by someon else's annoying or troublesome online activities, no?
I am strongly against a license (which you couldn't enforce, anyway), but I think safe computing should be indeed part of every school curriculum. You don't need a license to be a pedestrian, but every child is thought how to walk safely in the city traffic. Same should be for safe use of technology. It's basic education. It will come, I hope, and within one or two generations the Net will be a safer place.
people have to go to a class and get a license to procreate. See if that helps with the problem first.
You must be this (>100IQ) smart to breed
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Licensure is a BAD idea, whether it be for computers or any other field. Certification is superior, because it allows certification authorities to compete for mindshare, while licensing schemes are imposed by force. I'd rather not have the tests written by people from Redmond.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I hear they have something like this in Cuba and other totalitarian states. It seems like its working for them, the US government should really look into this!
Common people, this is the most stupid thing I've heard since yesterday ("Wow, I bet this is this new Linux thing", "No, it is FreeBSD", "So... where can I get this FreeBSD linux ?"). If you don't even think about the first amendment and the such, how in the world would you implement that? Would a special force (NetForce ?) come to your house and check your license whenever they please? Or would there be a card reader connected to your PC? Would it run on Windows, Linux, *BSD, MacOS etc. (God forbid, it would only run on Windows) ? Lets suppose that such law would take effect. So what if you don't have a license? Taking in consideration that people who proposed such law are complete ignorant idiots, would they make it secure enugh ? Most likely not. Heck, I bet Windows would store your "Special" key in registry UNENCRYPED. Or you could clone someone else's card.
Enough of this rubbish.
I punched a baby once.
Think very, very hard about it.
I'll wait.
. . .
Did you get it yet? Isn't installing programs without user intervention the PROBLEM? What happens when a cracker compromises a machine in a position to play Man In The Middle? and some of the 'software fixes' you get are actually worms?
I'm sure that part of the scheme will include installing the pubkey of MS' software update authority, and code that refuses to install a patch not signed by the corresponding privkey. But I am confident that someone will eventually find a loophole in the implementation and be able to impersonate MS to the computers.
And in the meantime, in the guise of fighting viruses, MS gets to absolutely control all software on your computer.
Did you know that Open Office, Mozilla, and the GIMP are viruses? (Remember that MS is already on record as describing certain license terms as 'viral'.)
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Now THAT is way overboard..
Even 'professionals' get hit with that due to poor software. How in the hell do you expect the average Joe, even after taking a class ( which is ludicrous in reality, that is like saying I have to take a course in nutrition before I can feed my family.. ) to even have a chance.
Compare it to a drivers license, to get the license you have to prove you can use the car safely.. it doesn't require you understand how your car's fuel system works, or its transmission.... that's not reasonable to require,.
Oh wait.. this would amount to easy revenue for the state.. Yup, this will pass with flying colors..
How about fine the bastards who write them instead? THEY are the problem.. not 'Joe User'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A one hour course in setting up firewalls and downloading patches will obviously prevent virus writers and hacking from obtaining licenses. The effectiveness would rival the tough questions that prevent passengers from bringing bombs aboard an airplane! College degrees would be an even better idea, after all, no progress was ever made in computers by anyone without a college degree.
- pain buddies are the only ones allowed outside.
I say it's a great idea not taken far enough.
We should require people to have a license before going out into public. The damage caused by computer viruses spread by unlicensed internet users is nothing compared to the damage from biological viruses spread by the unlicensed public. The rudeness of the average uncultered swine needs to be stifled. A one hour course should cover ettiquette and the use of surgical masks. There are almost no people left who can perform surgery on themselves when injured. To hell with a one hour course or 4-year degree, you'll need to be a licensed physician with incredible flexibility to interact with others.
It'll be a better world when me and all my Yogi-ER-physician-with-an-incredible-threshold-of
This sentence no verb.
....most certainly and without doubt..... give spammers less reason to spam as most would not be any more interested in getting a license to go online than getting a license to use the telephone or read a newspaper or magizine or listen to the radio...
Going Online is becomming a basic and common media form of communication.
Perhaps we should just pursue nullifying the constitution of the US and any other countries support for freedom of speech by requiring all the peoples of the world to have a license to communicate in any way, shape or form.
Something along the lines of an international communicators license, for the internet is international.
Or perhaps this article is a test to see just how stupid people can be to even consider such foolishness as a license to go online.
Having everyone running the same version of "secure Linux" with "the perfect web browser" and "the perfect e-mail client" isn't the answer to viruses and worms. A homogonous computing landscape like that might eliminate nearly all viruses and worms. BUT if a hole was found, the virus that exploits it would spread like wildfire. Users would be less careful because they think they can be, and with everyone running the same thing, everyone would have the same vulnerability.
That's why we need diversity on the Internet. We need a lot more diversity than we have now. As long as the unwashed masses are running Windows with Outlook, MS will have to have 100% security in their products. Anything less is asking for the problems we have now. And so far MS is nowhere near 100% in that regard.
That is why we need Linux.. and BSD and OS/X. That's why we need competition. That's why we need multiple Linux distributors who ship with different compiler settings that they think are "best." That's why we need to have choices of web browsers and e-mail clients.
That is why CHIOCE is a good thing when it comes to operating systems and software. Real choice breeds diversity. Believe me, if there were real choices, people would NOT all make the same one. (Real choice does NOT mean having only one OS ship on all PCs with only a single mail client pre-installed and a single web client pre-installed!)
Having choices that work together are why open formats and open standards should be in the headlines (not the crap like this article on user licenses.)
If file formats and network protocols were required to be open, it would eliminate many of the problems we face. Over the past 20 years, incompatibility between formats or protocols has been the #1 thing that I've seen cause people to change their OS. It has also been the #1 cause that I've seen for a change in the software they used.
How many companies are running MS-Office because they "need to be compatible" with customers or corporate? How many switched from WordPerfect for that very reason? How many articles have you seen that review OpenOffice and the #1 complaint (sometimes the only complaint) is incomplete or inconsistent ability to open/save MS-Office files? How many perfectly good software products have vanished because they weren't compatible with propietary products?
If file formats and network protocols were open, then Microsoft would have the chance to do what they are always claiming they want. They'd have the level playing field they always tell the press they want. The level playing field they claim open source advocates try to deny them by trying to pass laws requiring "considering" open source software in government.
In the real world, biodiversity keeps the first fatal disease from coming along and wiping out the entire population. On the Internet software-diversity would do the same thing with viruses and worms. Sure, a virus might still do damage to a section of the population, but it wouldn't have nearly the impact that one does now.
So, software-diversity is critical to the future of the Internet and open formats and standards are needed for it to exist. Maybe it's time for everybody to start demanding these things from their software. And maybe it's time for legislation to demand that software companies open formats and protocols enough to be interoperable... at least if their product has a significant market share.
Requiring some level of education is stupid, there are plenty of people who barely have an education who know more about computers than most people teaching computer-related classes. I lost track of the number of times I've had to correct instructors in my computer classes, and many of them have four year degrees, unlike me. The only certificate of education I have is a note that I completed a NT4 admin training class some years ago. :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem with that is people like me with a private e-mail server. Do I have to become a business?
No. Many people employ or provide services without legally declaring themselves a "business". Think of the school kid that mows your lawn for a few bucks, or the independent rent-a-nerd that fixes your computer for $$/hr.
Do I have to stop running the server?
No. But see response 4 for applicable "certifications".
Do I have to clear every new account with some external authority and provide a paper trail for every user?
No. In many places, a verbal agreement is just as legally binding as any written contract, particularly with small dollar amounts. That's why we have things like small claims court.
Do I have to have someone come into my home and audit my server?
No. Or, maybe optionally as a way to "certify" that you know what you are doing. In that case it becomes a "selling point" of why your service is better than someone else's mail server. Think of MCSE certifications.
Am I responsible for the tax if one of my users doesn't pay?
Yes. Just because you cannot collect money from your customer does not mean you can skip paying the tax. Many businesses run this way. Construction comes to mind. If the owner doesn't pay the construction company then they can't pay the contractors, who can't pay the material suppliers, etc. Eventually, the owner needs to cough up the dough, but legally, everyone else should have gotten paid by their immediate employer.
Do I have to pay a tax for administrative e-mail I send?
Maybe. As an example, my grandmother pays caretakers an hourly wage of $10/hour. There is no written, only a verbal agreement on when they come in and leave and how much they get paid. As their employer, she is legally required to pay taxes for them - FICA, Income Tax, etc. or her "employees" must declare their income as 1099. Not sure on all the details here. But, depending on how the law is written, the taxes might be waived for administrative e-mail delivered only to your subscribers. Why? Because theoretically, that traffic never leaves your mail server and thus never impacts Internet traffic. This rate would necessarily differ for ISPs, for example, who host mail servers, or have users running their own mail servers.
So far, no proponant of taxed e-mail has been able to give me an answer to those questions short of "you shouldn't be allowed to have a server - no civilian should", which I can't agree with for numerous reasons. Don't get me wrong, the tax idea has merits. I just think it's a pipe dream without some government authority getting draconian and ruining a lot of what makes the internet such an open ended learning experience.
HAM radio operators require a license for talking to a few scattered people over the world because sloppy use of radio waves could cause problems and interference for critical systems also using those airwaves. Why not require some certification or licensing for anyone running a mailserver as opposed to someone just sending e-mail from one? This should *definitely* be a requirement for anyone running a full-fledged ISP.
Note that I don't believe any of these measures need to be "draconian" in order to get the job done. In fact, many large, free, hosting sites like Yahoo! already provide very idiot-proof web site builders and e-mail services. It *might* mean the end of so many free e-mail services as the tax money will have to come from somewhere. Further, there is nothing wrong with having these licenses apply to servers running within US boundaries. If we want to be "draconian" about it, we can ask that any non-US-server wishing to send to US servers also have a minimum "certification". Finally, anything relating to taxes will necessarily mean government intervetion, as that is the only entity we have given permission to tax the citizenry. Just my $.02 blue
A hijacked computer is far worse than stealing anything off of it. They can use it in an effort to DDOS other people, to break into other systems, or to trade child pornography! Do you want to be associated with child pornography? No? I didn't think so. Now install OpenBSD you morons.
I SHOT HIM!
However requiring a license or certification of some sort to run a server that can connect to the outside world might be worth considering.
It would be somewhat analagous to the way FM or shortwave radio works. Anybody with a net connection can 'receive' the internet (and post to message boards, send email, IM, etc). To do this they would only need to have a few well defined port numbers open on their machine and the rest could be blocked some way or another. Maybe something in the hardware of the $15 consumer NIC cards if that would work (or maybe built into home routers?). Licensed/certified users could purchase slightly more expensive cards with full transmit capability (and probably other handy server features like load balancing and CPU offloading) that would allow all ports/connection types through. Kinda like how you need an FCC license to own and operate an FM transmitter above a certain power level.
There used to be a minimum amount of computer knowledge that was required to get online. It's once the bankers and marketers invaded online space, and tried to make it available to the unwashed consumer masses, that we started having all these issues. Returning the internet to the geeks, who were largely self-policing, would do away with the vast majority of problems.
Doing away with DNS would cure most of the issues, I think. How about having to remember the IP address for every site that you visit? If that's not enough, require three lines of CLI input before going anywhere. That'll stop the issues cold.
I'm only half-kidding, actually. These assholes that broke our internet want to certify us to get back onto it? Maybe they should just be dis-invited.
--
$tar -xvf
Oh, you want to blame the software companies? Absolve yourself of all personal responsibilities? Remember the last worm that went through? Remember how a patch had been out for it for a month before it struck? A patch that about 4 people downloaded prior to it hitting the net? Security is not just about secure software; it's a frame of mind that both the software companies and the end-users need to be in. There's no silver bullet, no software you can just install and magically not have to worry about security anymore.
I don't think it's going too far to ask a user to be educated about the dangers of a tool that he's using before he takes it out on the network where he could potentially endanger others. If it's proven that the last worm had something to do with the last power outage, expect to see a lot more calls for something like this.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
intense debate rages over whether or not we should be required to have licenses in order to enter libraries, supermarkets, or convenience stores.
Call me crazy, but doesn't regulating who has the "right" to access the internet defeat the purpose of its decentralized, unregulated design?
Only an idiot would try to license the internet. What are these guys smoking?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
"Evil Hacker in sector 14. Drop some commandos and have them put a bullet in his head!"
That'll teach those punks.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
This quickly wanders OFF-TOPIC and then drives the highway metaphor into a ditch, but that is because the topic at hand (moronic metaphors) does influence said OFF topic; which is in fact, in a ditch anyway. So mod this thing sKiz0phr3niK (if it ever gets read at all) because I don't know where such a tautological polemic belongs, but the fact that that is precisely what this entry is, helps me to believe that it belongs with the rest of its ilk(see brief excerpt) somewhere on /.. So if your socio-technological imagination rides around in a vintage four-wheel drive vehicle , it's time to get out and lock the wheel hubs for this rocky off-road rant, or if you're used to existential off-roading PKD-style, then take off the seat belt and enjoy banging your head against the roof with every ill-advised turn, ahead.
... er, fallacy of the driving metaphor to desribe the Internet; although my skeptical side wagers that many of the people now saying the highway metaphor is retarded for access are the same people who defended the metaphor with regards to transit (bandwidth). My point is, let's link this line of thinking back to the Ethernet First Mile bandwidth issue, because the two are not unrelated.
... didn't we just topple the evil Soviet Empire for doing things like running all state-controlled communications channels? For all his own misplaced highwayisms, our True President Gore did NOT envision a government owned and controlled Internet; but don't tell that to local government control freaks. If a municipality suggested that it own all of the phone, radio, and TV transmission facilities, can you imagine the uproar? But somehow it's a daydream for government to build and own the communications medium that transcends the Old Comms Trinity.
I'm glad that this issue of broken highway metaphors is finally helping some people realize the flaccidy
Capacity, capability, culpability, and community are all interdependent with respect to building the rest of the Internet. Contrary to popular mass delusion, as of the end of 2003, the Internet is less than 50% built. It will not be complete until there is free and unfettered Ethernet Everywhere.
As the current stupid "driver license" idea clearly reveals with respect to access, so transit (bandwidth) is not like a highway, either. The Internet doesn't take you somewhere, that was a FICTION work, but many still seem mindfscked into believing that, at least on a subconscious level. (Also mindfsked was the hype about the movie, apparently.)
The Internet is communication, not transportation. The Information Superhighway is perhaps one of the most malevolent memes unleashed on the world since "the most bewitching and insidious work of literature ever written," namely, Brave New World (and I even voted for the True President, Al Gore!). The highway metaphor is the underlying lie that is giving government the idea that it should own our communication infrastructure! Ummm
I propose that we get our analogies consistent and make a concerted effort to destroy this Highway to Hell internet metaphor. I'm amazed on a daily basis at the lengths supposedly smart people will go to defe
God forbid we have speculation in this world. Next thing you know, people will want the right to assemble freely, and practice any religion they want.
;)
And I wouldn't fear any politician running with this ball anytime soon. Think about it. 90% of the people who use the Intar-web are people who wouldn't pass such a test. And of those 90%, a lot of them are the more mature type of folk. The exact type of folk who would be pissed off as all hell at Mr/Ms politician who made it so they couldn't email pictures of their daughter's puppy to the grandma, surf the web, play Hearts online, etc. It would be a political suicide mission.
Oh, and your sig reads "Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task." and you have the nerve to complain about someone else acting elitist?
You cannot blame the programmer for users and clients who refuse to apply patches and updates. The vast majority of infections and the perpetual ping flood my firewall blocks are the result of users who don't maintain their systems, not the result of incompetant code.
Yes, there are cases where a zero-day exploit might affect those who paranoically update their systems, but that isn't what is sucking the bandwidth of the backbones right now. That waste of resources is 99% due to people who are too cheap and/or incompetant to be allowed on the 'net.
You can't put an unmaintained beater car on the road, and you can't legally drive until you've demonstrated you understand the basics of safe driving. I see no reason why home and corporate users should not be required to demonstrate their ability and willingness to follow similar safety principles for the shared internet resources.
As to those who create the infection vectors, they're no better than the drunken idiot who careen around a highway with a stolen car, vandalizing anything that catches their fancy.
If you want to crack systems for the sake of learning how, I say go ahead. If you want to crack systems for the sake of doing damage, then you should be treated as the vandalizing criminal you are and locked up accordingly. Maybe "bubba" can teach you a few lessons your parents forgot to.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Get used to it, virii are a fact of life on any public network. There will always be people who want to fsck with the system. Peoples houses still get broken into even though they may have security systems do they? Do we require people to take a test to buy a house?
I agree that taxing the internet resources would be a bad idea, but having an organization of internet "police" whose role is to identify infected systems for the ISPs to disconnect is not a bad idea. If the ISPs or their users fail to cooperate, start pulling the plugs closer to the backbones.
I have no sympathy at all for those who don't take the time to learn enough about their system to ensure that patches and updates are applied. Most of the backbone floods could be avoided by simply applying patches with a couple weeks of their release.
Your "right" to free speech stops when it directly impacts the lives of others. Even the racists know there is a line between "free speech" and abuse that exceeds their right to speak.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
He seems to have provoked the speculation, which is irrational and wrong. The press will run with stuff like that, and some politician is going to read this and think it is a good idea.
So you're saying he's a bad person for not speaking in atomic, unambiguous sound bites which have no room for interpretation?
That's depressing. What a society we live in.
I should point out that the press actually did not run with his comments -- they carried forward the sly criticism of his comment into the article very nicely. No, failing to understand and running with that was left for the dingbat who posted this article on Slashdot, and the dingbats who failed to read and/or understand the original.
It's important to remember, when reading Slashdot, that it's not journalism -- the people who submit articles are just random people, typing out whatever they make of things, and the people who select them for the homepage aren't journalists and aren't vetting or fact-checking them as an actual news editor would. And all that is kind of cool, and what makes Slashdot fun -- but forming an opinion based on what the submitter of a Slashdot article wrote, with no other context, is an even worse idea than forming an opinion based on what you read in the newspaper!
Make it easy to sue other users or businesses who let their computers be turned into virus-bots or spam-bots that attack you and to networks/ISPs who get these problems reported and do nothing. Spreading thousands of copies of Sobig.F is NOT a legit use of cablemodem or DSL bandwidth.
Say, via Federal law which allows suing through local small claims courts for $100/violation.
Defenses:
- You didn't do it. The header plainly shows that the plaintiff is a clueless luz3r. Judgement for defense and he pays.
- First offense. (verified by national centralized database by officer of the court) with admission of guilt. Defendant pays court costs.
- Best practices. Defendant shows that he had a (for instance) virus scanner that included the virus he's accused of spreading or a firewall that included stealthing ports on the "service" he's accused of inadvertently hosting as of the day of the attack.
- Problem fixed within 24 hours of ISP notification. If the ISP refuses to notify the user of a problem or unplug his account until it's fixed, it can pay his damage claim.
If a luz3r has to pay for the damage his computer does on the Internet, and ISPs are held liable for not unplugging idiots who let their computers be turned into hazardous waste sources, how far are people going to let epidemics go?Not a complete solution, but I think a good start.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Speeding - "Son, you were downloading a 200 megabyte file in a shared cable zone. Let me see your license and computer's registration."
Hit and run - "He came from nowhere and dropped a virus on my Zip disk. Before I knew what happened they disappeared."
Here is my idea, don't make a "license" required, but do offer courses in subjects such as "building your own computer", "how to install Windows/Linux", "how to connect to Internet with a cable modem", "how to connect to Internet with a DSL router", "how to connect to Internet with an analog modem", "how to secure Windows - levels 1-3", "how to secure Linux, levels 1-3" to the general public.
Have these courses designed for
people who usually don't use computers for their livelyhood or otherwise aren't forces to be literate.
DO negotiate with ISP's and see if they can offer discount or some other benefit to people for having passed 1 or more of these courses, the theory being that graduates will cause a lower drag on tech support resources, and thereby save the ISP some $$$ in support calls.
Oh, I am planning on doing something like this where I live. I think it will work as long as the courses are not too expensive, too complicated, and that there is some sort of incentive for Joe Sixpack to take the course ( saving money might do the trick ).
The courses themselves would be a good way to introduce Joe to OS's and applications other than what came preinstalled on his system ( examples: Linux, Mozilla ) and decrease the chances that Microsoft vulnerabilities will have the widespread effects they have had in the past ( Nimba, CodeRed, Sobig, Lovsan, etc ).
Would you be willing to buy a gift certificate for one of these classes to send your Aunt Matilda off to be educated?
I think it would work. The whole challenge ( to reiterate ) is to give sufficient incentive for people to attend, especially the ones who want things to "just work."
I can't afford a sig!
The other 95% of the world won't even notice, except that there will be FEWER ASL? ASL? ASL? FROM AOLUSERS, LOL!!!!!!!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Thanks. Definetely food for thought. Since I don't host the server for any profit - just for family and friends, I would have to reconsider if I'm going to be financially liable for it (I have very little $$$). Definite food for thought. Your analogy to ham radio is very provocative. Hmmmm........
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
If you leave a ladder and a crowbar in your front garden/yard and a burglar uses them to break into your house, that's your fault.
If you leave a ladder and a crowbar in your front garden/yard and a burglar uses them to break into someone else's house, that's also your fault.
Alternatively, if you live in a ground floor dorm, leave your window open, and a burglar breaks into the building that way, you are morally liable to those people whose rooms get burgled.
I don't see a problem with admins requiring a basic level of security consciousness.
Supposing some pinhead government really did require an internet licence. How long does anyone think it would take for an unlicenced, subrosa net to grow up from the grass roots?
I'd give it a month, myself. Even Red China has people surfing up stuff they aren't supposed to. This genie ain't going back in that little bottle, kids.
So you're saying he's a bad person for not speaking in atomic, unambiguous sound bites which have no room for interpretation?
That's depressing. What a society we live in.
No, i'm saying he's unworthy of being taken seriously for not doing so.
Hence the 'no respect'. I am sure he's very personable. That's not the issue here.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If the United States would enforce its antitrust laws, you wouldn't even be talking about this. Worms, viruses, security holes -- all "bonus features" from the Windows OS.
How about a damage deposit then? Even if you have glowing recommendations, you typically have to leave a deposit when you rent an apartment. Why not have damage deposits for Internet usage?
If you keep your system patched, then everything runs smoothly. If you download junk and don't keep it patched, and through negligence harm others, then you forfeit your damage deposit. It's just like an apartment. If you have rowdy guests over who trash the place, you're the one responsible, even if you didn't do the damage yourself.