How to Save the Internet

An anonymous reader writes "An article up at the Harvard Business Review's website by Jonathan Zittrain, one of the founders of the Berkman Center, discusses how the desire to clamp down on Internet openness can be avoided. From the piece: 'Those who provide content and services over the Internet have lined up in favor of "network neutrality," by which ISPs would not be permitted to disfavor certain legitimate content that passes through their servers. Similarly, those who offer open APIs on the Internet ought to be application neutral, so all those who want to build on top of their interfaces can rely on certain basic functionality. Generative systems offer extraordinary benefits. As they go mainstream, the people using them can share some sense of the experimentalist spirit that drives them.'"

Comments

I have a better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyday, I fill up a jar with a little piece of the internet. Right now, my house is full of jars, but I figure this will pay off once the internet is gone.

Re:I have a better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Its very inefficient to store tubes in jars.

Re:I have a better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I to am currently practicing a similar idea, im taking the best of the internet and storing in on my harddrive, currently, i have about 400,000 porn images, and climbing. Now i shall be prepared for a internet outage, either from the government, or my crappy ISP.

Re:I have a better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an even better plan I've been working on for a while. Every time this story is reposted to Slashdot, put a nickel in a jar. My house, too, is full of jars, but I feel like a nickel is worth more than the Internet.

Re:I have a better solution

[smittyoneeach]

fill up a jar

Oh java, you were ever the solution in search of a problem.

Re:I have a better solution

[lowid (24) _________]

I'll trade you a bottle of Crystal Pepsi for a jar of your internet..

Re:I have a better solution

[bobo mahoney]

I use mugs for my java not jars.

Re:I have a better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I used my time machine to go back and get a few bottles.

Re:I have a better solution

[that this is not und]

I do the same thing, in terms of archiving and locally mirroring anything and everything I think I will find useful.

That means I have the entire NetBSD distfiles (source tarballs) for a fairly recent Pkgsrc version ("make mirror-distfiles" is your friend,) and data and info for all the equipment, etc. that I have or want. Also it's important to grab old stuff while you can, like collections of OS/2 applications, and even Simtelnet's MS-DOS archives.

Not because I assume it will all one-day go away. Because I KNOW lots of it will go away, because a lot of it already has.

Re:I have a better solution

[sgbett]

But what will I do with the fairies? sounds risky to me.

Re:I have a better solution

[Guppy06]

Finally, someone who can answer the question "How much of the internet is pr0n?"

Save the internet with reefer

[Anonymous Coward]

once the internet gets the reefer madness, there'll be no stopping it.

Re:Save the internet with reefer

[GDubs]

The fact that this was modded insightful brings tears of joy to my eyes.

Hrm

[jrwr00]

I wonder, What would happen all ISPs did not look at what the traffic was, i think they would drop prices as it would not take as much resources as watching all the traffic on the their networks

Re:Hrm

[lexarius]

You think that ISPs would drop prices due to a reduction in costs? I want to live in this fantasy world of yours.

Re:Hrm

[rhyder128k]

I think that ISPs will be quick to "protect" users from all of this dreadful offensive porn that could harm their users. Unfortunately, the form that this protection will take is to award themselves extra money... [cough] I mean... charge extra for porn channel access.

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a great deal of traffic "snooping" is done to protect their own network from a variety of viruses and non-network friendly traffic. Programs such as Bittorrent and a handful of others both legitimate and viral, can have a horrific affect on networking equipment. While some of it is done to protect their own butts in case of a criminal case (ie illegal pornography, internet crimes), the majority of it is done purely to help protect their own infastructure and the users experience.

Believe it or not... but most ISPs actually care very little about what the user is actually looking at... except for Google and their plans for localized ads based upon which wifi hotspot the user is connecting to.

Just a thought from a fellow ISPian.

Easy.

[313373_bot]

Keep any form of legislation out of it. Let it self-regulate. Sounds radical and utopian, but the opposite seems even worse, ineffective and ultimately pointless.

Re:Easy.

[suv4x4]

Keep any form of legislation out of it. Sounds radical and utopian, but the opposite seems even worse, ineffective and ultimately pointless.

I'd give a hand* to eradicate cybersquatters by legislation. Also we have a big spam/scammer problem.

Legislation isn't out of the question, it just has to be applied with discipline. The internet is in its "wild west" phase right now, but as can be seen in USA itself, this is not a phase that lasts forever.

---
*Ok, I'd not give a hand, but you get my point.

Re:Easy.

[CastrTroy]

I don't think we have problem with spam or scammers that we can fix with legislation. Firstly, with spam, I have seen more than 2 spam messages per day in my inbox for a long time. This is through using GMail's filtering as well as SpamAssassin. Filtering out spam can get pretty far on just software, or at least a lot further than you'd get through legislation. Telling people not to send spam (especially when it's only illegal in certain countries) wouldn't get people to stop sending it. Also with scammers, it's a problem with education of the users, not with legislation. If people are stupid enough to type their bank password into some third party site because of an email they got, then they need to be educated about why that is such a bad idea.

Re:Easy.

[rustalot42684]

Yeah, 'cause deregulation ALWAYS works. Yes, it works in some areas of the market.

"But what is there stopping someone from making their own, new ISP that does not prioritize certain traffic?"

The costs of starting a new telecommunications provider are huge. You would have to lay in all your own fibre-optic cable and build a new infrastructure from scratch. Face it: The costs of making a new ISP are so immense that only someone like Google or Yahoo would be able to do it, and even then it would be VERY risky. So you're stuck with the ones you have: Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time-Warner, etc, and in Canada, I have Bell or Rogers. Because new competition is virtually impossible, they have no reason not to charge more & in new ways.

Re:Easy.

[Planesdragon]

you're absolutey right. I mean, look at how quickly the meat packing industry cleaned up after The Jungle. Or how quickly the automobile industry rolled out seat belts and air bags to all their automobiles, even the cheap ones, just because it was a good idea.

Self-regulation is a fool's dream, moreso than industry by demand.

Re:Easy.

[WilliamSChips]

Domain squatters though, that can definitely be fixed by legislation.

Re:Easy.

[CastrTroy]

Legislation through the organizations that handle domain registrations. This doesn't need to be dealt with at a criminal or government level. This is something that the internet can deal with on it's own, without incorporating the help of people in governments who don't understand the technology.

Re:Easy.

[Torodung]

Legislation isn't out of the question, it just has to be applied with discipline. The internet is in its "wild west" phase right now, but as can be seen in USA itself, this is not a phase that lasts forever.

I understand your analogy, but isn't it a bit specious? Did you ever fear being gunned down like a dog while running your shell account? ;^)

I think we all need to tone down the hyperbole. It's the only way we're going to be able to come up with measured solutions. More legislation is absolutely going to be necessary, but it needs to be carefully considered, not applied in fear and haste like the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners of the "Wild West."

That disciplined application of law you want isn't going to happen while we discuss the issues in these terms.

No one nor any process needs to be "eradicated." "Amended," that's a good word.

-- Toro

Re:Easy.

[daeg]

If they want it unregulated, they need to use only private land. Since they use public easements, the public has a right to regulate it through the Government. The Government should serve the people. In this case, it is of everyone's interest to allow companies to use the public easements -- companies stay in business and the public gets a valuable service from it. At no time should any concession be given to companies that require public property to operate. If a company disappears because they cannot serve the public appropriately, other companies will quickly fill the void.

Re:Easy.

[ozmanjusri]

Did you ever fear being gunned down like a dog while running your shell account? ;^)

There's somebody here you should meet....
http://members.iinet.com.au/~bofh/

Re:Easy.

[suv4x4]

I understand your analogy, but isn't it a bit specious? Did you ever fear being gunned down like a dog while running your shell account? ;^)

Yes, we all fear. Isn't it obvious:

"Don't forget your anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-phishing!"
"Do you know of a good spam filter?
"You need a good firewall, I recommend XYZ!"
"Internet Explorer isn't secure, get Firefox"
"You absolutely need to be always patched with the latest fixes?"
"I have all my ports closed but 80 and 443, even on those I'm having special rules setup."
"Drive-By Downloads: definition"
"Spammers attack back anti-spam site with DoS attack"

Does it sound like the Internet is a safe and happy place?

But here, I'll extend the analogy even further and explain the reasons: every single industry/society in the history so far is moving in cycles:

1. First cycle is early adopters, accidentally stumbling upon something new, people who use and develop something for the hell of it, without the general public realizing what it may be useful for (Columbus accidentally stumbling upon USA and thinking it's India)

2. Free phase: great for innovation, since the entry level is ridiculously low, anyone gets a chance, but there's no stability, no control, and that limits the use of previously mentioned innovation (wild west phase).

3. Police State phase: everything is legislated, entry level is high, but there's stability, so that you can rely upon the inventions of phase "2". There's still some innovation going on, but people rely on stability a lot more.

So there we go. Things that happen in the wild west phase don't keep repeating forever. There won't be a new Google every few years, for example, just like there won't be new Microsoft any time soon. Search engine has been invented and working well enough already, we'll mostly see legislation and increase in stability in this area. Innovation will happen elsewhere.

In the great Slashdot spirit of car analogies, I'll also ask you to imagine road without legislation. Sure, if this was the case, we'd have most problems with technology: much more intelligent, sturdier cars, cars that can take huge impact and the passengers will survive.

But they'll also cost a lot more in money and time to maintain and be sure the next time you crash you won't be dead, since it'll be perfectly legal to drive drunk zig-zag accross the road.

Re:Easy.

[313373_bot]

Some form of neutrality and fair competition enforcement is necessary indeed, given the big ISP oligopoly that currently exists. But it wasn't big business that made the Internet popular, rather, they encroached and grew alongside it. Proprietary services like Compuserve and others died or, like AOL, were forced to open to the "free" Internet in order to survive. If big ISPs try to go back to walled gardens, they will wither and die like their predecessors, so in that sense we don't really need legislation to curb their greed: let them try to charge more & in new ways, and fail it.

Re:Easy.

[313373_bot]

Look the other way: would you feel safe to do your shopping and banking online, because there are all sorts of laws and regulations to protect your data, yet find out that the merchant's database was hacked or some clerk in your bank lost a notebook will all your account information? They will not really fix their security because of some law, but only if people perceive the problem and demand a solution or otherwise take their business elsewhere. Laws usually come later, when some legislator adopts the cause for political gain.

Re:Easy.

[perlchild]

I'd argue that the problem with technology issues and regulation, is that it's almost unheard of for an industry expert in them, to also become a judge. What we need is for people who actually understand the issues to be the ones deciding, not politicians.

Re:Easy.

[ls -la]

The inherent problem with this is that you assume people in general are smart and rational.

Re:Easy.

[marsall_banana]

Cars all had seatbelts before regulation, the regulation was to force drivers to wear them.

Re:Easy.

[that this is not und]

You must not be very old. I can remember when seat belts became mandatory. Before that point they were optional equipment.

Re:Easy.

[that this is not und]

I can't think of that many things more horrible than a whole building full of government bureaucrats unleashed to 'regulate' the Internet.

You use some pretty wide-open terms there. Like 'serve the public.'

Re:Easy.

[DittoBox]

Regulation works in two ways. It's either written directly into law that assumes technology and market will never change or it's written in such a way that a bureaucracy is created with a broad charter and allowed to deal with the technical side of things in the way the body sees fit. The former works great until the market wants to go in its own direction or innovation occurs and the latter usually is given too much power, in that case we see things go ill very quickly when large amounts of industry money starts floating around. Just look at the way local governments give telcos and cable companies absolute local monopolies or duopolies. Federal level regulatory bodies also do a terrible job.

What I think is more important is a truely free market. One that is free of government intrusion and corporate bullshit. This is why I believe very limited intellectual property laws are extremely important. No software patents, short patent lifetimes, much stricter patentability guidelines, shorter copyrights, and laws that in anyway hinder creativity, invention and finally innovation (the process of bringing a good technical invention to market) --like the DMCA-- should be put into the trash heap of history.

Nothing however is black and white, and although this sounds very idealistic I think public education and knowledge are key to a free market's true success. The caveat is that we do not nor will we ever have this to a truly great degree. Of course it works the same for a democracy or a democratic republic. Just look at the way America is currently run and you can see the public did not and parts of it currently do not have a clue exactly what's going on. Yet again our choice of leadership has screwed us. To that end, we just have to find what works best.

Re:Easy.

[suv4x4]

I'd argue that the problem with technology issues and regulation, is that it's almost unheard of for an industry expert in them, to also become a judge. What we need is for people who actually understand the issues to be the ones deciding, not politicians.

Ministry of information technologies...?

Re:Easy.

[rohan972]

Did you ever fear being gunned down like a dog while running your shell account?

There is some doubt you would have had this fear in the "wild west" anyway. http://www.mises.org/story/1449 There would probably be places in the now "civilised" US that you would be more likely to be killed than in the wild west.

"in many places like Dodge City, tales of violence were actually accentuated to appeal to the tourist trade in the latter years of the Frontier."

"the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876-1885--an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse."

Re:Easy.

[node 3]

Legislation through the organizations that handle domain registrations. This doesn't need to be dealt with at a criminal or government level. This is something that the internet can deal with on it's own, without incorporating the help of people in governments who don't understand the technology. How so? That's exactly how it is now, and there's no regulation for this whatsoever. What motivation *AT ALL* do the registrars have to not allow domain squatting? None. The incentive is *exactly the opposite*.

That's the problem with libertarian free-market fundamentalists. Sometimes the market promotes undesirable behavior. For example, the free market promotes theft and murder. We regulate those activities because they are deemed to be sufficiently undesirable. Domain squatting isn't as bad as murder, but is in some ways like theft (blocking a limited resource with little-to-no societal benefit from being used productively by someone else, hence "squatting"). If you deem it sufficiently undesirable, the only logical solution is regulation. You're far more likely to find results with government regulation than you will with voluntary free-market regulation.

For example, without the EPA, do you think the environment would be cleaner or dirtier than it is now?

Re:Easy.

[rs79]

com/net/org can be said to be regulated. The country code domains less so. It end up being about the same at the end of the day.

How much of a problem is domain squatting really? There are laws against the most egregous ones. There are contractual arrangements for out of court dispute settlement. Then your left with guys buying domains for 6 and makig $7 or more of ads on landing pages.

The problem here is this is a slippery slope. You may have a "better" use for the domain but the result is the same. Some guy not me has it. Maybe I'll see different ads instead. Big woop.

The domain system works because there are no regulations that tell you what you can do with your shiney new domain name. To start putting any limits on this will undoubtedly inconvenience legitimate users while the sneaks just find a way around it. We saw this when we forced netsol to start enforcing .net regulations for their intended purpose. It just can't be done sorry.

You have no particular right to any specific name. First come first served may suck but it sucks less than any of the alternatives.

Besides the net had bigger problems than domain issues.

Re:Easy.

[quantaman]

Keep any form of legislation out of it. Let it self-regulate. Sounds radical and utopian, but the opposite seems even worse, ineffective and ultimately pointless. There's a problem with trying to make a system an anarchy to maintain freedom.

There's no such thing as anarchy.

Just look at any 3rd world country without a strong government, they're some of the least free places around since you're at the complete mercy of whoever happens to control your little area. That's exactly what will happen to the current infrastructure of the Internet without government control, and the local warlords are almost certainly going to be ISPs. ISPs who control the flow of bits, and if they own the wire they have a natural monopoly as well.

Now maybe someday we'll manage to build some kind of the completely decentralized P2P mesh where we don't need ISPs and we'll actually be able to make the anarchy work. But right now the physical network and what goes over those wires is controlled by someone, and if it isn't the government it's going to be big business. Now I don't really trust the government to always do the right thing, but I trust they'll do a better job and be a little more accountable to us than Microsoft, AOL, and the baby Bells who are the other option.

Re:Easy.

[node 3]

To start putting any limits on this will undoubtedly inconvenience legitimate users while the sneaks just find a way around it. We saw this when we forced netsol to start enforcing .net regulations for their intended purpose. It just can't be done sorry. Ugh, of all the brain-dead arguments put forth by free-market fundamentalists, this is the most inane. It's the "if even one person can get away with breaking the law, the law is useless" argument.

Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Does that mean outlawing murder has not worked? That it "just can't be done sorry"? Of course not.

The question is, can there be a law which sufficiently addresses some issue, while not unreasonably infringing on individual liberty?

For example, a law which states an individual or a corporation (and all basic derivations of each) cannot own greater than 100 domains unless they can show that they make some form of use of them beyond placeholder or primarily ad-based pages? See how that's weighted *against* the innocent person who merely owns a handful (or few dozen!) defunct domains, but focuses directly on domain-squatters? See how it allows for an independent judgement to allow for people to own and use many domains, but stop those who try to weasel around the law?

Now, I know what you are thinking. Why can't someone just form multiple LLC's and buy 99 domains each? Tack into the law that if a person is directly affiliated with a net total exceeding 100 domains, they fall under the purview of the law. Or make forming additional companies to bypass the law illegal. This sort of loophole closing works for other laws.

You have no particular right to any specific name. What does this even mean? If I buy a domain, I have the right to it, unless I'm infringing on someone else's right.

First come first served may suck but it sucks less than any of the alternatives. I disagree. First-come first-served severely favors gaming the system and snatching up every word you can imagine. That's why it's so completely impossible to find a domain-name that isn't already taken.

Go ahead and try it. Most of the names you can come up with will just end up in some parked domain name.

Re:Easy.

[UncleFluffy]

For example, the free market promotes theft and murder.

Hmmm... this isn't as self-evident as you seem to believe. A purely short-term market, with no tracking of past history, maybe - but it doesn't work that way. In a fully open market, you are able to examine the past interactions of the people who are inviting you to interact with them.

(That's not to make a claim about whether government regulation is good or not, just to clarify a point.)

For example, without the EPA, do you think the environment would be cleaner or dirtier than it is now?

Without the EPA, it would be dirtier. Without the EPA, *and* without the restrictions preventing me from retaliating forcefully against the people producing toxins that enter into my lungs, it would be a whole lot cleaner, and you can guess why. Consider the scope of your question carefully.

Re:Easy.

[Bios_Hakr]

This is one of the reasons I can't vote Democrat. I really don't need mommy to tell me to wear a seatbelt. It's awesome that The Jungle (awesome book about chicago meatpacking) informs consumers about meatpacking. However, government shouldn't be in the process of regulating transactions between individuals.

Every law that is written means more taxes, more bureaucrats, more waste, and less money that I can spend.

Stop calling for government to take care of you. Start taking care of yourself. If 20% of the population dies because they are too dumb to survive, too bad.

Re:Easy.

[eldepeche]

Yeah, start inspecting the packaging facilities of all the places from which you buy food yourself. It'll be way cheaper than everyone in the country paying for the FDA and USDA.

Re:Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about you guys, but I prefer Chaotic Neutral to Lawful Evil.

Re:Easy.

[mh1997]

If people are stupid enough to type their bank password into some third party site because of an email they got, then they need to be educated about why that is such a bad idea.

Last week I received an email from the electric company (Duke Energy) that asked me to click a link in the email, update password, account number, answers to security questions, and finally, to verify if my banking info on file (for direct billing) was correct.

I forwarded the email to Duke thinking the email was a hoax (I didn't check). A customer service agent called me on the phone and let me know the email was real.

When legitimate companies don't follow basic security protocols, people will continue to be "stupid" and provide information to anyone that asks.

Re:Easy.

[maxume]

Deaths by gun would be a lot more interesting than murders. Also, per capita numbers.

Re:Easy.

[rohan972]

I wondered that too, I remember seeing something about incidence armed robbery being lower, but I don't have a source. I think the "die violently" part of the quote "Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876-1885--an average of 1.5 per year" probably is indicating gun deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_City 1880 census 996 for Dodge city, so still very high, but considering that Dodge City was a famously wild place it seems likely to me that most of the west was not that bad. Even at 1/664 it's not exactly "I quivering in my boots" type stuff. Good chance of a large proportion of them happening at bars or other avoidable situations and that you could go about your business without much risk.

The article I linked to in my previous post also indicates that there was a notable increase in violent crime after the civil war, both in the west and the east, which is an interesting point, but not pertinent to whether the wild west was more dangerous than posting on the net.

Re:Easy.

[Merusdraconis]

Without the EPA, *and* without the restrictions preventing me from retaliating forcefully against the people producing toxins that enter into my lungs, it would be a whole lot cleaner, and you can guess why.

But if the people producing toxins have decided that it's better to spend money on effective mercenary security than effective pollution control, you're still SOL. Especially seeing as the security forces don't have to worry about the restrictions on appropriate force.

Let's rewind, and put aside the question of whether the free market promotes theft and murder. The idea behind capitalism is that several self-interested parties are going to do a better job of finding an appropriate balance in the market (that is, a rate for goods and services that ensures that transactions continue and one side doesn't end up with an advantage) than one party with no particular interest. This is desirable because when the market inevitably shifts, one of the parties is going to change their valuation of the market, so the market stay nice and nimble and those who come up with innovations that change the balance of the market will be rewarded.

The problem comes if someone works out a way to permanently unbalance a market, so they have a much greater say about how it works than others. This is undesirable, because it means that those innovations are only rewarded if they conform to the interests of the controlling party. Most forms of corporate crime - monopolistic practices, antitrust and suchlike - are ways in which a party attempt to seize control of the market in such a way that they cannot be displaced. In any result, what you get is a broken market, no better than a communist or feudalist market where one person determines the price of everything.

In a capitalist economy, the job of the government is to identify and regulate this behaviour, using its very effective methods of regulating personal criminal behaviour. In some cases, governments will go one step further and attempt to stimulate competition in a market, or ensure that a minimum level of competition takes place for the public good - while this rarely happens in the United States (the USPS is one example), it's known overseas, and for the most part the government-owned business is mandated to turn a profit under its own funding.

The whole point the market exists is because it's better than the government (and interested private citizens) doing everything. If the market stops doing that, why keep it around at all?

I've always wondered about the term "free market", anyway. I thought that a free market was one where any entity could enter into the market and start buying and selling, not one with no government regulation. As it stands, market leaders have a very good reason to stop entities entering into the market and increasing competition, so the two can't be one and the same.

Re:Easy.

[CrossChris]

Keep any form of legislation out of it.

The only legislation that would have any positive effect is to prevent all users of Microsoft "operating systems" and "software" connecting. 90% of spam and other 'net crap is from compromised MS machines.

Re:Easy.

[Bios_Hakr]

Places like 20/20 or 60-minutes (or the fucking new york times) can make money by telling you what is good or bad. Or, even better, if you don't know your local butcher, don't trust them.

Of course, you can always rely on mommy to tell you what's good for you...

Re:Easy.

[Just Another Poster]

The Jungle was a work of fiction, as were its claims:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229

"Historians with an ideological axe to grind against the market usually ignore an authoritative 1906 report of the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Animal Husbandry. Its investigators provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair's allegations, some of which they labeled as 'willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,' 'atrocious exaggeration,' and 'not at all characteristic.'"

Re:Easy.

[maxume]

Googling around, modern murder rates are about 6 per 100,000. 1.5 per 1000 is 25 times that. In Michigan (my state...) the rate is about 6 per 100,000, except in Detroit, where it is closer to 45 per 100,000. Exclude the approximately half of murders that occur in Detroit from the statewide calculations, and it somewhere less than 4 per 100,000. So being in Detroit(which many parts of are scary for visitors) is 3 times less scary than being in Dodge City, and the rest of the state is about 35 times less scary than being in Dodge City.

I'm sure people mostly just got on with their lives, but in trying to relate to it, it doesn't sound fun.

Re:Easy.

[rcani]

The inherent problem with legislation is that it assumes that the legislators are smart and rational, which is in turn just an assumption the the electors(people in general) are smart and rational.

Re:Easy.

[CastrTroy]

I didn't say that companies were exempt from being stupid. I think it would be nice if companies started doing this kind of thing, although in a more secure way. It would be nice if my bank would send me PGP Encrypted and signed emails with my statements so that I didn't have to get a paper statement in the mail every month. I don't know why banks don't do thinks like this to make their customers more knowledgable, and try to show them that email can be a safe way of transmitting information. Once PGP goes mainstream, and people start accepting only signed email from people they enter in their address list, we'll be that much closer to completely eliminating spam.

Re:Easy.

[node 3]

In a fully open market, you are able to examine the past interactions of the people who are inviting you to interact with them. Two problems with that.

The first and most problematic is that there's no such thing as a "fully open market" where you can "examine [all] the past interactions". Do you think if we removed all regulations that corporations would suddenly put their entire corporate history on the Internet for all to examine? It seems to me that clearly the opposite would happen, and they would disclose *far less* than they do now.

The second is that companies *right now* kill and steal, and we don't boycott them. The info is out on the Internet right now. Most of the theft and murder happens outside of the US, so we don't really care. Hell, Ford's knowing complicity in killing people through the Pinto happened right here, and people still buy Fords.

For a more accurate expectation of what a fully free market is like, look to places where there is no regulation (i.e., no laws).

It's all about power. If there isn't a government which is designed to serve the interests of the people, the people will be at the whim and mercy of those able to acquire sufficient power.

Without the EPA, *and* without the restrictions preventing me from retaliating forcefully against the people producing toxins that enter into my lungs, it would be a whole lot cleaner, and you can guess why. Consider the scope of your question carefully. Scope: no laws (the definition of no regulations, the end-result of free market fundamentalism). Result: Corporation A dumps severely toxic waste into the stream that you rely on for drinking water. Illness and death plagues your family and you have no idea why (do you think Corporation A is going to tell you what they're doing?). Assuming you figure out the source of your misery, you head over to the front gate of Corporation A to politely seek redress. Of course, you get nowhere. You return to forcefully seek redress, but since you don't command a small military force, you again get nowhere. You threaten to tell the papers, but Corporation A laughs. They advertise in the papers. Or they take your threat seriously, invite you in for negotiations, and behind the walls surrounding Corporation A, you are never seen again.

Sound like insane paranoia? This exact sort of thing happens all over the world in places which have "freer" markets than we have here.

The free market most libertarians have in mind is impossible. It is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself out of existence.

Laws--restrictions on people's activities--are required to create a market structure under which capitalism can thrive.

Free market fundamentalists always rail against the few laws which really do suck, which really do hinder capitalism. Laws like the DMCA, or the obscenity regulations imposed by the FCC, and completely ignore the thousands of laws which they rely on every day, laws which, were they to vanish today would send the US into the third-world tomorrow.

Re:Easy.

[rohan972]

I'm sure people mostly just got on with their lives, but in trying to relate to it, it doesn't sound fun.

Yes. It does also depend though, on the context the killings happened in. How many gunned down at random while doing their business vs how many gunned down during a drunken argument. Stay out of the bars and be safe? Probably very difficult to tell now, but the fact that it appears towns played up their reputation for violence to gain tourist trade seems to indicate that you could live quite safely.

If you got your impression of modern day levels of violence from films, you would have a very different picture than reality, also I think the west was the same. Many people moved west with their families, presumably not usually to known trouble spots. It was probably generally quite safe.

Re:Easy.

[Mattintosh]

eradicate cybersquatters by legislation

Can't be done. There are two ways to cure cybersquatting. Either 1) don't buy their wares and let them find real work, or 2) use the internet for what it should be used for: finding their personal information and subsequently using it to ruin their lives.

we have a big spam/scammer problem

No, "we" don't. Spam can be made unprofitable by raising the signal-to-noise ratio. Fight spam with spam by sending 10 fake spams for every spam you recieve. Eventually, people will detune themselves to it and it will die. Scams aren't my problem, and they shouldn't be a public problem, either. If you're dumb enough to give away your bank account information to thieves and the thieves clean out your account, well, tough shit. (However, if my bank gives my info away, that's a different story. My bank's ass should be on the line in that case.)

It's simply a case of retarded and/or unconcerned people attempting to use a tool they have no real ability to use. Get the morons off the network. (That goes for road networks, too. We could lose some of the asshat drivers on the roads and it wouldn't hurt my feelings any.) I'm only 27, but, in short, YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

Re:Easy.

[sustik]

> This is one of the reasons I can't vote Democrat. I really don't need mommy to tell me to wear a seatbelt.

The seatbelt protects *not* only the person wearing it. In accidents of medium impact, without the seatbelt the driver may become completely incapacitated (knocked unconscious) and lose the ability (chance) to avoid another impact (maybe more fatal) or other danger. This effects the other drivers on the road (and the passengers if there are any).

I cannot comment on whether the seatbelt is a Democrat or Republican idea really (I am not a US voter). Let us assume that it is indeed a Democrat thing. Some friends of mine say they can't vote Republican, because of the way the war on terror and the war in Iraq is handled. I humbly suggest you cite some other reasons for not voting Democrat than the seatbelt issue, because it might sound somewhat lightweight or even ridiculus in comparison to the war one.

Re:Easy.

[Bios_Hakr]

Democrat means big government regulating everything and everyone in every way possible. They "take from the rich and give to the poor". Republicans are often seen as friends of big business. The reason for this is that they are against government regulation and oversight. Dems == big government. Repub == small government.

Re:Easy.

[perlchild]

I meant judges, few issues are "decided" by ministers, they usually are put forward by them however.

Re:Easy.

[bandmassa]

The US has never left its wild west phase, sheesh! Why else is the low IQ cowboy chasing oil in Iraq (with the help of the feral eybrows from my own country, I'm ashamed to admit.)

Re:Easy.

[UncleFluffy]

The free market most libertarians have in mind is impossible. It is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself out of existence.

(Please don't assume I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth libertarian, btw - I tend strongly in that direction, but don't regard it as an absolute - maybe I'd be better classed as minarchist). My comment was mainly intended to say that government regulation has mixed effects. As ever, when I make a quick and imprecise slashdot post after a couple of beers, someone responds intelligently with well-reasoned content.

Laws--restrictions on people's activities--are required to create a market structure under which capitalism can thrive.

You do seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism in your argument though. Remember that libertarians believe in "non-initiation of force", which includes absence of fraud. This assumes forceful enforcement of such a restriction. Now, whether such a utopia is achievable is another question entirely, which I'm not going to even start to get into here.

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Interne

[Spazntwich]

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Internet is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered internet community when IDC confirmed that internet market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the internet has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The internet is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *The internet faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the internet because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for the internet. As many of us are already aware, the internet continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Google is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Google developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Google is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Internet leader Al Gore states that there are 7000 users of the internet. How many users of the internet are there? Let's see. The number of internet versus tin can phone posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 anus users. Internet posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of porn posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of cocaine. A recent article put the internet at about 80 percent of the porn market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 slashdot users. This is consistent with the number of scene Usenet posts.

UTOPIA

[Anonymous Coward]

WELCOME TO ./ Internet UTOPIA comming to a computer near you.

Don't Worry Ma'm

[m1sha]

I'm here to save your internet!

Re:Don't Worry Ma'm

[beyondkaoru]

truly heroic, like this:

http://xkcd.com/c208.html

Re:It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Inte

[slicenglide]

This man is straight babbling incoherently, please ignore.

Re:It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Inte

[Spazntwich]

You're new here, aren't you?

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=139135 2

It's called Tongue in Cheek humor. It can require some ability to recognize nuances in language or technique, and given the number of self-proclaimed Asperger's syndrome patients on Slashdot, I'm not entirely surprised it has been modded troll.

Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Torodung]

The only crisis I see regarding the Internet is that a large percentage of its users and networks implement a fundamentally insecure operating system, and the overwhelming majority of the client side users that run that operating system do so as ROOT, because that was the default install.

That's a garbage in/garbage out (GIGO) proposal for the Internet.

Otherwise, I think the Internet can handle it. It is carefully maintained and I think we'll even solve the looming address space problem. It doesn't need "saving" from anything but predatory last mile carrier profiteer rail barons who want to choke it off at the access points for profit.

So, Mr. Zittrain, your basic premise is flawed.

Here's a brief for a future article: The crisis is not with the *Inter*net, it is with the networks themselves that are internetworked. They're not secure. That's a local crisis, on a user by user and network by network basis. No change to the Internet or its protocols can fix it. GIGO.

Discuss.

If that was what your article eventually discussed, I apologize for my prejudice, but I couldn't get past your "Chicken Little" premises and foregone conclusion that "the Internet" is somehow in the crisis you described.

--
Toro

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Sidepocket_Pro]

So basically you foresee the internet turning into the awful anime show .hack?

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[that this is not und]

the overwhelming majority of the client side users that run that operating system do so as ROOT, because that was the default install.

Who should get root then? Government functionaries whose job is to oversee the 'smooth running of the internet'? Functionaries at Microsoft and Red Hat? Admins at the ISPs should have root on all equipment hooked up through their wires??

You're engaging in hand-waving.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Anonymous Coward]

No he's not... a big part of security is knowing when NOT to use "Root." Basically, users should only use the Root Account when no other will do, and ONLY then. Using it for anything else is a big security flaw.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Chandon Seldon]

Just because you have root access doesn't mean you should be running as root. This isn't a contradiction, or even a hard problem; Ubuntu and OS X get it right.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Barbarian]

The default install of Windows Vista Home is no difference than the way Ubuntu is set-up with respect to the user account and default permissions.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the operating system (surprise, Macs and Linux have remote holes too), it's the language. C/C++ and the mindset of developers who continue to use them in spite of secure alternatives are a plague upon the entire field of computing. Safe languages like Java and C# are not a panacea, but the Internet would be a far better place today if C/C++ had been replaced by them early on. I'm talking at every level of the software stack, including userspace, drivers, the kernel itself, and even the hardware abstraction layer at the bottom.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[Creepyguywithastick]

I stopped at "a fundamentally insecure operating system".

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[eldepeche]

Yes, but there are applications that have to be run as an administrator because enforcement of user privileges didn't start until 20 years after Windows entered the market and 12 years after it became an operating system.

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[maxume]

So it's a social, not a technical, problem?

Re:Crisis? What crisis? I stopped at page one.

[crossconnects]

it's so obvious you stopped at page 1. so did the moderators that modded you insightful, if they got that far.

He was talking about so much more, mostly about what can stifle the innovation that the internet provides. The internet is not in jeopardy of being shut down, but rather having a significant part of it's innovative structure locked out of significant numbers of end users, in a way they wouldn't even miss.

Much of the cause is just what you said, at the last mile, but his premise is not flawed.

He discusses ideas and solutions that keep innovation going strong. Read the rest.

Scott

Just stating the obvious.

[JRGhaddar]

The internet doesn't need to be messed with. Its actually the only free (as in speech) place to exchange information (depending on where you live).

If someone tries to regulate it people will find an alternative unregulated version and an industry will spring up to provide that, and those who regualted it in the first place will deregulate it to compete again.

The internet is actually the latest step in human evolution.
[For those who don't believe in evolution just ignore this. I'm not attacking your views just stating mine. ]

Think about it its the passing along of information from one generation to the next is how humans evolve. Now information exchange hit an un prescedented high with the internet, and the more we move to open communcation standards the more accelerated innovation and technical advancement will be possible thus more human evolution. If it is regulated or controlled then it will slow down that evolutionary process. So I am all for any way possible to preserve the internet as we know it, and if possible find as many mediums to work with it and expand its potential for information exchange. The more information we have the better. Now getting government officials to use that information for the good and well being of the people they represent and not just there own perosnal well being. that's the hardest part.

Re:Just stating the obvious.

[eldepeche]

Where do the comments on YouTube fit in to your evolutionary process?

Re:Just stating the obvious.

[Scarblac]

The internet doesn't need to be messed with. Its actually the only free (as in speech) place to exchange information (depending on where you live).

But only because of net neutrality, and the whole open, free way it was designed.

Without government interference, the original AOL would have ruled the world. You get to see exactly what your provider wants to sell to you. Net neutrality is the only thing keeping that at bay, imo.

Re:Just stating the obvious.

[JRGhaddar]

Your comment totally cracked me up. That is a good one.

Hmm... let's think about. Well I think they fit somewhere in the realm of the weak minded wasting there opportunity and instead of taking advantage of what we have, are spending there time contributing useless stuff. Every genetic pool has weak links. Youtube comments just help identify the weak links floating at the surface and distracts them with "shiny things" while the rest of us can move forward.

Re:Just stating the obvious.

[JRGhaddar]

I completely agree with your comment. Net neutrality is completely essential. and it was government interference that knocked down the original AOL, and thankfully so. Ya know come to think of it. Sounds very much like a certain OS dominating the mainstream today and an incredible open OS in the shadows.... one can only hope this is where history repeats itself.

Re:Just stating the obvious.

[maxume]

Or perhaps we have net neutrality because the knuckle draggers(<-- sarcasm!) that were involved in the early internet, military, academic and commercial all, were nearly universally aware of what a 'network effect' is, and the benefits it brings.

The reason everyone is afraid of the 'market solution' to internet regulation is that they know that if given the choice between a neutral dial-up provider and a rapacious high speed connection, they would go with the high speed, 'principles' be damned.

Create 2 internets...

[Anonymous Coward]

When we switch to IPv6 (well, not those who downgraded to Vista) why not set aside some of the IPv6 space for a nice clean filtered internet thats safe for kids & adults. Let companies like Verisign, Microsoft, ICANN & the others regulate, sanitize & clean that part up as much as they want, give it a special domain (maybe .boring or something) and leave the rest to the rest of us who dont want others deciding what we should be allowed to access.

Does this not call for a redesign of the internet?

[perlhacker14]

Lets face it: the internet is a mockery of what it was meant to be. It is full of literally crap and is subject to the whims of politically oriented morons. If the internet was redesigned, there would be a chance to restart: a chance to redesign the net to suit what is best, without idiotic interference. The issue of net neutrality would come up, but with a redesign that works around it, there would be no problem. Think: a new chance to fix all the ridiculous errors and issues and clean up the internet through a redesign.

About appliance-like locked down computers

[lachesis-jp]

The article is interesting, long but interesting. The author is arguing among other things that PCs should stay mainstream because they are a motor of innovation since they are easily adapted to new applications. The author sees closed appliances such as tivos as a danger to innovation.

I too believe that PC are extremely important in our society. But I am not sure that the generalization of locked down internet-appliance would be a bad thing.

The main reason we are assaulted by spam and that botnets are rampant is that the average user is ignorant. A computer is a great tool and it's a very powerful one but as the other said "with power comes responsibility". But for a large portion of the users, the computer is a tool, that they use for a rather limited set of applications, and they have no deep understanding of how it works and what they have to do to use it properly : we can see that in the inability of so many to secure their computers.

To use the sacrosanct car analogy, computers are like cars that you can drive without license. Since you don't need a license, people don't bother learning how to operate it properly : they are not interested and I can understand that. The problem is that now computers are interconnected and interact with others computers the same as cars interact with other cars on the road. You could very well operate your car without learning anything other than how to turn it on and accelerate but in that case, it is required that every drivers learn how to use turning light and other things before they can go on the road so that they don't impact the welfare as the other users.

On the other hand, I'm sure that , those problems will be reduced in the future as children that have been brought up around computers and the internet will be more computer literate than their parents but the general level of computer illiteracy I see around me makes me think that it will take a long long time before the average joe can be trusted with a computer.

What could be done to reduce this problem :
        -Nothing. Things are going to worsen but there is probably nothing we can do.
        -Let OS vendors turn to trusted computing but that would destroy the power and usefulness of General Purpose computer for everybody.
        -Hope people will turn to easy-to use appliance like device.

I think we are indeed seeing that on a level : we can already find appliance-like locked down computers in many houses : tivos, xbox, playstation, they all are lockdown computers. Not everybody need a PC and I think it would be good if people had the choice not to get a real PC if they don't have the skills to use it.

Re:About appliance-like locked down computers

[keithjr]

What could be done to reduce this problem : -Nothing. Things are going to worsen but there is probably nothing we can do. -Let OS vendors turn to trusted computing but that would destroy the power and usefulness of General Purpose computer for everybody. -Hope people will turn to easy-to use appliance like device.

Unfortunately, there is a fourth option: gross restrictions on internet traffic and application usage. This brute-force and lowest-order solution is the impetus for our conversation here. It means loss of net neutrality and the big companies vie for pieces of the online pie. What the public needs to know are that other options EXIST to secure the internet.

Simple, eloquent means of securing general purpose PCs from malware, viruses, and other online threats exist. But, as you said, Average Joe doesn't see them, and can be thus be easily convinced that locking down the internet will be just as effective.

Re:About appliance-like locked down computers

[cdrguru]

As long as you have "users" connecting unsecured devices to the Internet, they will be compromised. As long as there are people using the Internet to attempt to trick people into doing things which will compromise their computers, the Internet will not be safe for commerce, banking and other business activities.

The drive to use the Internet for these functions is going to mean that the script kiddies, organized crime gangs, botnet herders and hackers have to be stopped. One way or another. Today, it can be assumed that if you are not an expert and do not assume every email and IM is a potential trap your computer is going to be compromised. Such compromise will leak your banking and other business information to criminals. This is intolerable to banks and anyone else trying to do business on the Internet.

So it is going to get fixed, one way or another. Today there are no appliances that can be used for web and email without severe restrictions on the users. So everyone has a general-purpose computer that is wide open to compromise. All it takes is opening the wrong email attachment.

Re:About appliance-like locked down computers

[that this is not und]

So everyone has a general-purpose computer that is wide open to compromise. All it takes is opening the wrong email attachment.

My 'general-purpose' computer that I use to connect to the net is a hugely popular model of which millions were sold. A Dell Optiplex GX1. Yet somehow it isn't 'wide open to compromise.' I use Sylpheed to read my email, and only from my user account on NetBSD.

So how, again, am I wide open to compromise? The setup I am using was completely free, so there's no 'cost barrier' to other people doing the same. And this machine, the Dell Optiplex GX1 I am typing this one, cost me less than a dollar at a University surplus equipment auction. Again, no cost barrier.

Nothing bothers me more than the notion that Microsoft and a few other 'big vendors' (i.e. Red Hat or some other private companie) steps in and a 'trusted' model is adopted. It would need to be binary in ways that I wouldn't like.

Re:About appliance-like locked down computers

[lachesis-jp]

You are safe because unlike 95% of the population you are a technical user. You know what you are doing. You need to consider the security of John Doe's computer : he's the one very likely to be infected with malware.

Re:About appliance-like locked down computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to the car and road analogy... Despite the various laws and regulations concerning roads and vehicular use, there ARE still crashes and drunk drivers that Joe Average can't avoid. Thus there should be a set of laws to govern against phishing, malware, spyware, adware, and spam and there should be some way to enforce them, and make sure they pay. Joe Average gets in a wreak and he goes to a mechanic after settling the matter, through a court case if need be, to fix the car up. Joe Average should also, if he ever got his PC infected with malware and after setting the matter with the malware provider, through a court case if need be, he should go to a Computer Specialist to get his PC all fixed up. Also, the roads are public save for specific pieces that are not accessable at all or require a toll... The internet as of now is public save for specific pieces that are not accessable at all or require a subscription. Describing net neutrality in terms of the rules of the road would be allowing various companies to have roads with different road signs, making driving very confusing and causing more crashes. Instead, we should help educate users on safe surfing practices.

This is all bullshits

[Anonymous Coward]

This is much like saying "How to save Free Software". We can SPREAD the word about Free Software, but there is no point in trying to "save it", because no one can stop you from programming and releasing source code if you like.

The media is not a problem but the content. If they "take" the media let's fork a LAN.

So much for the title.

DRM Hurra!

[Via_Patrino]

"If enough Internet users begin to prefer PCs and other devices designed along the locked-down lines of tethered appliances, that change will tip the balance in a long-standing tug of war from a generative system open to dramatic change to a more stable, less-interesting system that locks in the status quo."

DRM Hurra, for making the Internet more stable and people less free.

Now a bit more serious, that's still a single point of failure, the closed devices that, if compromised, none may notice or easily recover.

People still crack Xbox, blue-ray, even being closed devices, because they see a value on it, but what's the value of cracking an Ipod ?

Low price and marketing (deadlines) will continue to be the focus of big companies, not reliability and security, although the working environment will be more predictable.

And PCs won't die before TV Sets do, which I mean both will coexist with new (more things to sell) technology.

Re:DRM Hurra!

[bluefoxlucid]

but what's the value of cracking an Ipod ?

There is none.

Article link leads to a login page

[Animats]

The link to the article on Internet openness leads to a page where you have to agree to an EULA to read the article. Openness. Right.

Re:It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Inte

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Tongue in Cheek humor.

I thought that stuff was supposed to be funny?

Just ask the inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

Al will get started right after he's finished saving the environment.

Re: your sig

[smittyoneeach]

Sure that wasn't Joe Walsh, "looking for clues at the scene of the crime"?

Here's how:

[The Orange Mage]

Right click -> Save File As...

Re:Here's how:

[Dersaidin]

Brilliant, except Firefox is Right click -> Save Link As...

The crisis with the sponsored Internet...

[jd]

...is much the same as the crisis with the sponsored academic and the sponsored journalist. Ultimately, those doing the sponsoring (whether it is big business or big government) will want a return on investment. In the case of academia, this involves fraudulent research and a restriction on what can be studied. In the case of journalism, fraudulent articles and a restriction on what can be covered. In the case of the Internet - well, we've seen some attempts at disinformation campaigns and we're certainly seeing a restriction on what can be distributed.

Far as I can see, this isn't anything new. The sole difference is that we could always blame the academic or the journalist for caving in. This time, it's us. Nothing is going to change, "us" is too vague a concept and most Internet users have trouble realizing or understanding that there are people on the other end of connections. What's more, most of those with enough vision and intelligence are libertarian. Nothing wrong with libertarians, but isolated individuals have never made an effective stand against anything. Libertarians are sufficiently against organized opposition (associating unions with the American versions, which never did have anything to do with international unionism) and any form of solidarity (which is only associated with communism in the States) that the worthiness of their ideals is a total side-issue. They will never be heard.

Related to that is that everything socially-oriented (socialism, universal healthcare, whatever) are also always labeled as communist. Yeah, right. Only communists could want to see people in good heath, and the only forms of political system the Universe will ever see are either right-wing totalitarian regimes or Stalinist totalitarian regimes. The remaining thousand or so countries only think they have something else. Sigh.

In countries like China, and so on, they do exactly the same only in reverse. You're either identical (and therefore have nothing to add) or a polar opposite (and therefore have nothing to contribute).

Why is this political rant relevant? Because it is absolutely perfect for making it impossible to make a difference. I don't know if that was deliberate or accidental, and frankly I don't care. Nor do I care if corporations or governments are responding instinctively or deliberately. Why should it matter? If you want the Internet to be a medium that allows for the free exchange of information and ideas, it's utterly unimportant as to whether the blockages are caused by stupidity, malice or budgerigars. The issue is the blockage, not how it all began.

True, you've got to fix the originating cause or it's just going to recur. But if you stand back and do nothing, because fixing the cause is too hard, you lose all that you could still have gained. Corruption, due to money and power, is at least a five-thousand year old problem - that being how far written records go, though is more likely to have been a problem with the advent of humanity roughly a quarter of a million years ago. Yes, it's obnoxious and childish, but spanking politicians would be a bad idea. They'd enjoy it too much.

The only option left is to collectively assert, on a global scale, that the current state of affairs is unacceptable, that the constraints will not be tolerated, and (this is the important part) if those with authority over the Internet are unwilling to act with responsibility, they are replaceable. Anyone can run a DNS server. Anyone can install a router. Long-distance high bandwidth cables and fibre - yeah, ok, those are a problem, and no private individual can possibly replace even one of those. But collectively, there is no ISP or backbone provider that is not dispensable, if (and only if) people stopped being so fanatical about individualism that they acted together to preserve their individuality.

Don't forget the lawsuits and babysitting

[ColeonyxOnline]

Everyone is talking about Spam and botnets, but most are forgetting about the blatant assault by idiots using the legal system to take down anything that they don't like on web sites and forums, or parents that get abhorred when they allow their kids to talk with strangers without supervision just to find out that not everyone will treat their kids the way they do.

I believe these two issues outweigh the problems with spam and botnets, because we won't be able to say anything about anyone on any site without expecting to be sued. Not to mention that everyone will have to act as a babysitter so the parents can feel safe about their children.

I am not sure what to do about the legal suits problems, but on the babysitting problem, maybe the Internet should be rated XXX (like those hardcore porn movies) just so parents know they should pay a little attention to what they kids do on the Internet.

Re:Don't forget the lawsuits and babysitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehh, give that a decade or two and just like Rock & Roll people will understand the internet and video games are not kids stuff.

Better than a EULA!

[Torodung]

It's not a EULA. There is no licensure. There isn't anything to agree to, either, other than copyright law in general or their TOS/AUP if you're a subscriber. No license. No agreement.

It's simply a 189-word boilerplate statement about their commitment to copyright, and a statement of policy.

In the first paragraph, however, is the stand-out offer:

We therefore allow you to excerpt up to 500 words of an article for your personal use. This excerpt may be posted in your or another's blog or site, provided that it is accompanied by a link to the page on which the original article appears.

The way I read that is that HBR Online grants anyone who clicks "I accept" up to 500 words of limited personal republication rights, which is rights to exactly 500 more words than any other copyrighted publication. They simply ask that you link the full article in return.

Or you could accept no republication rights at all. Your choice.

So far from being a EULA, it's a concession. HBR Online is going to accept that small bloggers can't really use a "fair use" defense and is going to give them, beyond "fair use" coverage, limited rights in return for a link back. That is a good deal at a good price.

All I can say to HBR is, "Thank you." After a brief bit of reading I happily clicked "I accept."

Or as you said: "Openness. Right."

-- Toro

Torrent

[normuser]

How 'bout a torrent ;-}

ROOT == ADMINSTRATOR folks. Windows is the OS.

[Torodung]

I'm sorry. I've got a few people confused here by not using proper terminology.

I used the term "ROOT" because I didn't want to specifically mention Microsoft (MS). The machines that default to the user running at ROOT privileges by default are *all* Windows machines, and the proper term is, of course, "Administrator privileges."

To me, it's just running as ROOT. Sorry to cause confusion. I thought I had thoroughly insinuated I was talking about MS.

--
Toro

Re:ROOT == ADMINSTRATOR folks. Windows is the OS.

[TeknoHog]

You could have used 'admin' or 'administrator' which is a relatively vendor-neutral term, whereas 'root' is associated with unix. Unix people know you mean 'root' if you say 'admin', but Windows people may not know you mean 'admin' if you say 'root'. I mean, there's even a widely used title called 'unix admin'. Besides, writing 'ROOT' is confusing while you use 'GIGO' as an initialism, which 'root' is not.

The morons will fill it back up.

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless you design the new internet to be moron-proof, in which case 80% of the population will keep using the old tubes. And businesses will stay where business is. And you'll be alone on your utopian island.

Okay now, enough is enough

[Torodung]

Look, that was a very interesting reply, but you didn't really read mine if you must ask this:

In the great Slashdot spirit of car analogies, I'll also ask you to imagine road without legislation.

Bzzt! Why? Here's what I said before:

More legislation is absolutely going to be necessary (emph. added)

I can't be any clearer.

But for crying out loud, your hyperbole (and apparent fear) seems to have taken this discussion off the deep end. I'll just pray that you are joking when you suggest that the only way to implement law and regulation is in a...

3. Police State phase

Holy crap.

"Wild West" seemed specious, but "Police state" is a very dangerous way to describe simple "law and order."

Couldn't we have a "guilds, taxes, and licensure" phase instead?

I am fine with law. What I am against is hysteria. The Internet is not a safe and happy place because the world is not a safe and happy place, and you'd better get used to that.

Beyond that, even with laws, we still have to put locks on our houses, and the computer equivalent is what will stop most of the fears that you presented. Laws cannot allay fear. Laws do not prevent crime. Basic security measures do.

Do you think laws stop crime? I think they allow us to punish people who commit crimes. Which means that the real deterrent to crime is the enforcement agencies, not the legislation itself. You have to catch people and you have to try them and punish them. That's how it works. We're going to have to hire a lot of very technically savvy people to enforce such laws, we're a long way off from training them, and the tools such agents would employ are inchoate at best.

Simply putting a lot of law on the books will not help that. We'd have to mobilize thousands of new enforcement agents, we'd have to train lawyers to deal with computer crime, and, the most daunting of all, we'd have to find at least one judge who understands technology issues. That's what your deterrent plan would entail.

Antivirus programs, etc., for the near and foreseeable future, make a lot more sense.

There is such a vast and coherent spectrum of legislative powers that can be brought to bear without a "Police State" being implemented. We don't need that. We don't have to have the whole of society RFID implanted to keep them from doing antisocial things, and we don't need to take similar measures with computer systems.

Besides, safety is never worth a police state, and police states are proven to never be safe or stable. The trains did not run on time in Mussolini's Italy. You may as well call it the "abuse of power and terror phase."

If you are not joking about this, then you have accepted, and argued, that we need a "police state" in your previous post, because you are uncomfortable with the Internet. That's just crazy. If that is the case, you should just unplug your computer and go do something else. Your life will be better without it if you are that terrified.

-- Toro

Re:Okay now, enough is enough

[Ash Vince]

A wonderfully insightful post from Mr Bullshit.

Re:Okay now, enough is enough

[Torodung]

LOL. I mean that.

And a wonderfully appropriate signature you have. ;^)

--
Toro

Re:Okay now, enough is enough

[Ash Vince]

Thanks, I meant what I said sbout your insightful post too. I wish I had some points for it.

Re:Okay now, enough is enough

[suv4x4]

Police State phase

Holy crap.

"Wild West" seemed specious, but "Police state" is a very dangerous way to describe simple "law and order."

Oh it's a a very fine way. I like interestingly sounding names.

You see, the phase after Police State is revolution, death and rebirth.

Societies and industries are like people. They're young and free, then adult and productive, old and stubborn, controlling, then they die, but their kids are there to replace them. And every generation does better than the previous one, that's all that matters,

Two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back...

BTW, have you noticed how RIAA/MPAA/TV industry tries to sue their way into business lately? Legislation must solve everything for them. They are in very late Police State phase. Soon they'll die and be reborn. Hm, I wonder where would TV be reborn. And I see apps like Joost and it's clear.

Re:Okay now, enough is enough

[Torodung]

Cool. You were just being colorful. I had hoped so.

I think you're right. They're drowning in their own sense of privilege. I honestly think we're at the point where we can no longer even guarantee the incentives that copyright (and other IP law) provide, and are going to tighten down ("police state") until society can no longer stand it, and then comes your "revolution."

The revolution is alternatives and new business models. New incentives and the death of those who cling to the old, hopefully without violence. I hope a 12-year-old getting sued is the worst that comes of it.

Steve Jobs, for his own reasons, has fired the shot heard round the world in his deal with EMI. Other's are doing so with Creative Commons and copyleft. Hopefully, the purge and rebirth in the mold of these trends will be bearable.

It's like the whole of intellectual creation is saying: "Pardon us for the inconvenience." Like end product of the Enlightenment is on pause, waiting for its next careful step into a bold unknown.

--
Toro

We don't need to lift a finger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone knows that Al Gore will save the internet.

- a.c.

Jonathan Zittrain is Dead Wrong

[asphaltjesus]

Those who provide content and services over the Internet have lined up in favor of "network neutrality,"

Either the guy doesn't have a clue, or the ridiculous statement was intentionally misleading.

Both content and services are run by some combination of the telco's and media conglomerates. It is very plain to see that their objective is to turn the Internet into a _delivery_ system that they control. Most governments in the world go along with this because an Internet that has some semblance of unfiltered communication between individuals is a direct threat to their control.

This guy is dead wrong. That he's from Harvard probably means I'll be modded down for disagreeing with him.

It's fairly simple

[petrus4]

Most of the people who make up the American government should be moved into nursing homes where they belong. If that were to be done it'd solve a whole heap of different problems, not just the net's. ;-)

redesign

[jefu]

Somehow, I suspect that any redesign would bring out all the special-interest groups, the rich corporations and the nutters big time. We'd get a redesign, but it would be specified so that unsolicited email (not "spam", of course) from large corporations would get favorable treatment, so that towns could censor (that whole local values thing the supreme court put into place) all incoming and outgoing traffic, so that politicians could take over the internet at any time for any reason. For my part, I think I'd rather not.

Saved?

[jaavaaguru]

The Internet needs saved? I didn't think it was dying. At least, it hasn't been confirmed.

Re: your sig

[poopdeville]

Speaking of sigs, I finally figured yours out. I know a little Latin, but I was stumped on wtf devo/deuo could be.

I bet...

[Ayanami Rei]

...you think you'll be thrown clear of an accident.

If that is the case, you really do need mommy to tell you what to do, because you're apparently too stupid to evaluate risks yourself.

Re:I bet...

[Bios_Hakr]

The people who think that are dumb. However, the government has no business telling me to wear a seatbelt. If people want to drive without a seatbelt, that's their problem.

What's amazing is that in every state in the union, I'll get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Yet in most places, there is no law against people who drive while eating, talking on a cell, adjusting the radio, smoking, etc... Which of those things is a real danger?

Re:I bet...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope none of you actually think the seat belt law is there for your own safety. As if the gov't is actually concerned for our personal well being.

Revenue.......Revenue......Revenue

Only Ken Gemberling can save the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

and his pals Chains the bounty hunter, Hotmail, and the Insultobot.

HBR Online Terms and Conditions

[Jump]

HBR Online Terms and Conditions

In order to access articles on HBR Online, you must agree to the terms and conditions that apply.

The 'I Decline' button doesn't work. Accepting the terms is contradicting the message of the article (how to save the internet openness).