Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former FBI Agent Calls for a Second Internet

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the it-became-necessary-to-destroy-the-internet-to-save-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet. Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials. The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight, which is why he claims we must change the structure of the Internet."

7 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. Translation by christurkel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you."

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Translation by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, and also you probably have less spam and phishing due to transparency.
      The US military is taking a step in this direction with Common Access Card (CAC) readers.
      I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like /.
      Dunno if credit cards/cash makes a good analogy for the two use-cases, but it least the analogy lacks wheels.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Translation by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft & AT&T has also wanted this... that's how they'll "fix" things like spam, porn, competition, etc. What everybody really wants is a pay-per-connection system like the phone system. The commie geeks at MIT and DARPA pulled a big one over building a fault-resistant, uncontrolled, re-routeable open spec network in the name of "national security"... it's the last time corporations will let that happen.

    3. Re:Translation by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You noticed that part! We need to keep a real eye on "Un-"Trusted Computing. The software keys for it won't even be in federal hands with a structure of warrants required to get them, they live mostly in Microsoft hands with no published legal standard of how to obtain people's private keys. It's potentially quite useful for this kind of walled community: a small set of central keys provides access to the registered communications, but those keys reside in commercial hands and don't need warrants to get. I wonder who would find that helpful?

      This is great for Big Brother, or his cousin the NSA, and for warrant-free unauthorized searches of electronic content. It's exceptionally bad for individual privacy. I just keep hoping that someone will find some vulnerability similar to the one that shot down the SkipJack, federally created encryption system. (It turned out you could forge your own keys, and there were at least 3 significant patent violations.)

  2. typical law enforcement drumbeat by drDugan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Doing law enforcement is getting harder, so let's change the rules"

    I see this now in almost every arena of law enforcement... and for good reason. It *is* getting harder to do low enforcement. The thought process is something like this: "As law enforcement, we know we're failing; we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect." Basically enforcing laws is a traditional behavior. It is the way to maintain stability and control on society and in a similar way that traditions maintain cultural norms. Traditional behaviors are the antithesis of innovation.

    Technology is changing at a breakneck pace, and increasing in the speed of change. It is hard, nigh impossible for large, bureaucratic, rules-based organizations to keep pace with innovation in technology, and the concomitant adoption by criminals.

    The disturbing thing is that instead of law enforcement innovating to keep up with the demands of the job, many in law enforcement have lobbied successfully to change the rules of the game. This is most true in the United States over the last five years with the tired dirge: "give up your liberties or the terrorists will win".

    I think the correct solution is to change the way we do law enforcement. Change the people who do it. Make smaller, more nimble organizations. Change the speed with which law enforcement operates. Remove entrenched, non-technical savvy deadweight from organizations. Incorporate the latest technology. Change quickly with the rest of society and keep the fundamental principles that make open society possible and successful.

    And for christ's sakes, please stop degrading people by forcing them to take off their clothing and shoes to board an airplane. I know, it seems totally off topic, but the same idea we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect.

  3. Re:In other words ... by siddesu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, it has little to do with stupid. What started as random voices against the internet from various corners several years ago is now solidifying into a very firm and well-funded opposition to a the free internet.

    The reasons of the different parties vary, but they are all pushing consistently for the same outcome -- a monitored and controlled internet. Most worryingly, their lobbying and scare tactics are increasingly getting results.

    First, everyone under the hat of IFPI and the various Recording and Movie Ass. of wherever are in the game as their business model is evaporating. They want more restrictions and more monitoring, so that they can eat into your consumer surplus better. Most other copyright and related rights owners jump on this bangwagon, as they have strong vested interest in having their monopoly to be extended in various ways.

    Then, there are the newspapers and the TV -- in addition to belonging in the first group, they feel their revenues are being eaten by a random collection of bloggers, aggregators and other uncontrollable internet evils that deliver more targeted and interesting commentary faster and at lower cost. Besides, their relevance as propaghanda tool (and their position as "the fourth power") is also threatened, and they'll fight hard to keep it.

    Finally, there is the government. The establishment want to know more about you so that they can tax you (and, in general, manage you) better. Surveillance is always a boon to them, and anything that can bring more is very welcome. Especially lobbying groups like those above, who make seemingly "legitimate" cases for more surveillance and control. But it doesn't end there. The internet is also a threat to the establishment in that it allows exposure of their questionable activities; it keeps track of their past deeds. This threat makes the life of the establishment politicians hard, and they'll fight to remove it. Bribery is a big source of income, and threats to it are hardly welcome. Finally, the internet allows "fringe politicians" and large groups of people to gather behind a cause quickly and efficiently. This tends to make, among everything else, lobbying less efficient, and decrease the amount of legal bribery income.

    And, this push against the free internet is happening everywhere. Draconian internet laws have sprung fast virtually everywhere in the past year or two - the US, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Korea, which suggests what happens is not a random process at all.

  4. License to surf the Internet by metoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just like you need a driver's license to use the public road system, or a passport to fly, you will need a Internet license.