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.

Comments

All I can say is WOW.

[LinuxMan]

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

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[SampsonSimpson]

Viruses and the holes they exploit are the responsibility of the programmers, and they are in a better position to fix these problems rather than trying to distribute the responsibility to users. While preventative maintenance on behalf of the users should be encouraged as much as possible, it should never become a pre-requisite to internet use.

It's plainly impractical, (Given the global nature of the internet, how do we go about giving one entity the responsibility to handle all of those registrations?) and it would implicate much privacy concerns.

Also, (and possibly more importantly) I think there are very important First Amendment concerns raised with a mandatory licensing scheme - The internet is a communication medium, and I'm not sure a licensing requirement will strike the correct balance between security/safe computing and free speech; In ACLU v. Reno the Supreme Court viewed the internet as a "unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication" and that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." The Court was concerned with the CDA and its censorship of pornography, but I think the logic applies to all forms of government restrictions on internet communications. I think the court recognizes the importance of the internet and its impact on speech, and but for compelling reasons, free speech will be given more deference over restrictions that provide dubious benefits.

I don't think virus/exploit free computing is compelling quite yet, because I think I am capable enough to prevent most exploits on my computer. Whether someone else prevents it from spreading or not is irrelevant to me - only I have the ability to prevent it from attacking me. I shouldn't blame you for sending me a virus, I should blame myself for not being able to prevent it from infecting my machine

I suppose it's different when an intrusion is per se harmful to a third party (for example, when I start harming the RIAA after a virus infects my computer and starts sharing music files) but those situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis anyway.

Basically, my point is that licensing internet use is a bad idea, and possibly unconstitutional. Let's not even consider it.

and no, IANAL.

Just Hold Responsible

[2starr]

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.

Re:Just Hold Responsible

[TwistedGreen]

So if everyone gets infected, does everyone get fined? I think it's ridiculous to get fined at all, let alone getting fined for deficiencies in software /you/ didn't write.

The problem isn't the users.

[Malor]

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.

Better idea

[rossz]

I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.

Our Own Network

[Heem]

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.

Flamebaity, but not really flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Can we

[Shadestalker]

I was going to rebut, but my ride is here - gotta go before he starts flinging feces at the neighbors.