Former FBI Agent Calls for a Second Internet

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."

Comments

Hmm...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Will the second internet have Third Life?

Re:Hmm...

[Idefix97]

Although Dempsey says that a solution "might be" a second internet, which to me sounds silly, he does make some very valid points on how cybercrime needs to be handled across borders.
It seems that many countries just want to forbid things, with regards to the internet, rather than adjust to a new way of looking at crime committed through the internet.
If it turns out that law enforcement can't or won't adjust to the speed in which cybercriminals operate, maybe the only way to help prevent crime is to educate the users, or even help write better software (against spoofing etc.).

Re:Hmm...

[phpmysqldev]

"Will the second internet have Third Life?"

No, no! Its a multiplier so it would have 4th life. Which raises the question of what happened to 3rd life?

Which is why I will be producing the new online sensation "5th Life: Search for 3rd Life"

Dont even get me started on the currency conversion.

Re:Hmm...

[b4upoo]

I am amazed that anyone is falling for the internet as a criminal nest nonsense. Obviously whenever any very large group of people does anything at all some crime must occur. It's all about proportion. How many people died world wide fighting to keep their bicycle from being stolen last year? How many died because of internet activity? We all know bicycles were far ahead in the crime stats. So should we build an entirely different society to keep bicycles from being stolen? Obviously not. And we don't need a new net either.

Re:Hmm...

[The Spoonman]

So, does the Internet increase the amount of kiddie porn, or the access to it? If it increases the number of kids who are molested on film, I can stand behind trying to invoke extra measures to stop the growth. If, however, it just makes it easier for more pedophiles to view the same images, then the problem isn't the Internet. The problem is the kiddie porn and "fixing" the Internet isn't going to change anything. Of course, the real solution of finding a "cure" for pedophilia would be a better alternative, but that's just me...

I quoted the word "cure" because I know there's no "cure", but treatments could be developed that would minimilize a pedophiles impulses and thus allow them to lead a normal and productive life. Putting them in prison or on Dateline is not the solution.

Re:Hmm...

[spun]

I don't think the bicycle analogy is very good. I agree. This is Slashdot; we only use car analogies here. Of course we do. A good car analogy is like a finely tuned race car. It gets you where you need to go faster. Although it's loud. And it's probably not street legal. And sometimes your car analogy crashes into someone else's car analogy and there's a big wreck but the fans love that anyway. And you need a lot of gas, did I mention the gas?

Translation

[christurkel]

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

Re:Translation

[TubeSteak]

"We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you." Notice that he isn't complaining about the domestic situation. He essentially wants to reincarnate AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, etc of the 80's and 90's because creating walled gardens is easier than convincing foreign countries to change their laws. WTF?

He can't have a legislative solution, so he comes up with a technical one.
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.

Re:Translation

[tomhudson]

The whole idea is that in Soviet Amerika, Second Internet spys on YOU!

Re:Translation

[mabhatter654]

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.

VPN

[ForestGrump]

Someone give this guy a VPN.

Re:VPN

[kesuki]

requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction.

also much easier to implement than trying to build an internet around catching crooks.

so what do you do with the criminals from Africa who are connected to organized crime, who have whole 'internet cafes' and people standing watch so they can get out of there if the 'police' come, who are more than likely on the take anyways...

remember the 'untouchables' it took a special breed of cops to go against organized crime and get results, and with 'cyber crime' often being 'international crime' it's difficult to police.

'spying' on what people do over the net is really the only way to catch the criminals in the act. however, doing so in a country that you don't work for is impossible with the way the internet works. unless of course, you create a law governing how 'backbone' providers work with international police, to allow certain countries to be 'locked in' to a certain backbone, where the data traveling from that backbone to other backbones can be monitored... and evidence of crime can be monitored, and controlled.

doing something like that would discourage the growth of online crime in iran and africa without affecting internet usability in 'modernized' nations, but countries like china russia etc would be much harder to try and stop crime in, without completely redesigning the internet around catching criminals, the problem will only get worse.

remember the prohibition, when a layman could make a fair bit higher salary rum running, than doing decent work, crime spiraled out of control. an internet that doesn't care who does what or when or why and does everything to make any packet go through to recipient... will only breed a den of thieves.

can the global economy take a 7 billion dollar a year hit to cyber crime every year, for the next 20 years? no it can't and that's why tracing criminal activity is Going to become standard. right now to credit card fraud, identity theft, and check fraud scams etc... i seem to recall hearing that europe and the usa were combined losing 7 billion dollars a year, but it was on dateline nbc, not on the internet so the figure might be off.

tracking the criminals down is going to get easier, and the crime harder to pull off. It's only a matter of time.

although i Seriously doubt they're going to make it easier for the movie and music industries to track down users, and catch them 'in the act' what is going to get targeted is the stuff that really steals from the banks, and the rich and gives it to the criminals.

if i had the money I'd bet a billion dollars that within a decade hacking will be traceable world wide, through hardware ids before they get the money transfered from one bank account to another one.

if i had another billion dollars, I'd wager that in 10 years banks will process checks the way wal-mart does now, before they hand the user any money, and before they can 'wire' the money to another bank account, the original account is checked for the money, and the check is scanned by the computer for identifying marks, that can verify it as original.

taking 3 days to verify a cashiers check just doesn't cut it when that's what check cashing fraud scams are banking on.

Re:VPN

[TheLink]

"requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction."

While they are in prison or once they get out?

Or are you going to keep convicted criminals in prison because it "would be a step in the right direction"?
Or keep them permanently on public "* Offender" lists?

If rehabilitation rates are so low and nobody really gives a damn, why not just execute them like they do in China? Since obviously "everyone hates them so much".

The only big difference between you and a convicted criminal is you haven't been caught yet.

Is copying stuff a criminal offense yet?

Um, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but changing the "structure of the internet" because some former policeman says it would be a good thing just ain't a persuasive argument. If anything, take whatever he says and do the opposite.

In other words ...

[rossz]

"We're too stupid to deal with this interweb thingy, so we need the entire world to change how things are done to accommodate our incompetence."

Yeah, that's going to happen.

Re:In other words ...

[TubeSteak]

It doesn't seem like you understood what he actually said.

"the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet ... has much more to do with the fact that the legal systems throughout the world vary greatly and take a very long time to change." He's complaining that the rest of the world's laws are the stumbling block, not the USA's incompetence.

That said, I agree with your conclusion.

Re:In other words ...

[siddesu]

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.

Ummmmm, no.

[BWJones]

"Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet.

Ummmm, no. What he means is that they want to form a new network that can routinely be filtered, scanned and probed with no means of anonymity (already going away) or flexibility.

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.

How about figuring out how to deploy a network within your own agency first, that agency employees can actually use?

Re:Ummmmm, no.

[morgan_greywolf]

yup. there are plenty of old fashioned brick & mortar ghettos full of criminals too...

Yeah, last time I was in Washington, I saw a few. One of them is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the other one is on the opposite end of the Mall.

Re:Ummmmm, no.

[tsm_sf]

Pulling common sense into a discussion about law enforcement is practically unamerican. We want more criminals, but harder penalties. Prevention doesn't fill jails, buddy.

to the FBI..

[LingNoi]

I don't care about your needs to "successfully fight cyber crime" which to me translates to "successfully sniff out rats".

I care about speed, anonymity and integrity of data.

That annoying "internets" word will be real!

[dbIII]

That very annoying "internets" word will be real and I won't be able to threaten to kill a puppy every time sombody that should know better uses it.

Re:That annoying "internets" word will be real!

[Solder Fumes]

There are already two.

While we are at it why don't we create new cities

[deadmongrel]

Since major cities have more crime than before why don't create new cities.

But the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet is not necessarily due to lack of cooperation among international law enforcement bodies."

As opposed to extraditing murderers, mafiaa members etc is easy with respect to "traditional" crimes?
Why hire competent people who technology as tools and adapt your law enforcement agency when you change the world around you to adapt to your incompetence?
And for those who says "Think of the children": No law can effectively parent your child for you. Do you damn duty.

Yay

[jollyreaper]

When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.

Re:Yay

[c6gunner]

When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.

Right! So the next time you hear a bomb technician yelling "RUUUUUNNNNN!!!!!!!", be sure to flip him the bird and stay exactly where you are! Fuck Da Man! Vive le Revolution!

Also...

[TheWizardTim]

... the FBI want's a pony.

Good idea..but

[Alphavox]

What do we do when the second internet is overrun? Building a new internet everytime "cyber-criminals" get on it sounds expensive...

Second Nigeria

[Viking Coder]

If only we could create a second, more secure Nigeria.

Security is impossible

[laffer1]

There is only so much we can do to secure any network from attack. There will always be ways to spoof identities, and commit illegal acts. Retooling the whole thing won't make a different in that regard. We may up the bar a little, but that won't last for long. People will think of new ways to work around what we can think of today.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind an overhaul on DNS and SMTP to slow some spammers and other jerks down.

The real problem is the diverse nature of laws between different countries and the strong enforcement in some places and near zero enforcement elsewhere. Think about it, someone in Russia can do almost anything outside their country and not be prosecuted. In other places, we have parts of the Internet filtered because of some lame moral code.

I just wish these people who don't understand the spirit of the Internet would take their marbles and go home.

International crime means new internet?

[flabbergast]

"If we accept the fact that the greatest hurdle in arresting international cyber criminals is that various legal systems just aren't prepared to address the speed at which these crimes occur or the various nuances that are unique to computer crimes, then the question is: What can we do to fix the problem?"
So, he goes from acknowledging that there's a jurisdictional problem and a speed problem when it comes to law enforcement to creating a new "verified" internet where you have to "prove" who you are? Umm..no.
And he goes on to hit every hot topic in security today: DDOS, identity theft. spam, etc. And then, he makes the claim "the fact is that Internet crimes are almost always international crimes." And he doesn't back it up, rather gives anecdotal evidence of a hacker in Russia using computers in Thailand to steal data.
I am not a security expert (and I'm not pretending to be) but this "sky is falling" mentality is crap. Most identity theft (the act of stealing) is not done over the internet, its done locally. Yes, selling lists of thousands of SSNs and credit card #s happens over the internet, but the thievery itself doesn't.
In fact, this would make things worse: you're creating a global ID. Once someone steals your global ID they can do whatever they want. And once again, your ID wouldn't be stolen over the "new" internet, it would be stolen because you didn't shred a document and someone went dumpster diving.
This doesn't solve any problems.

i'm gonna go build my own internet!

[Deanalator]

.. with blackjack, and hookers!

Re:i'm gonna go build my own internet!

[CrazyJim1]

The internet already has blackjack and hookers.

Digital Immigrants vs. Digital Natives

[Chris Snook]

I won't disagree with the assertion that the internet is a game-changer when it comes to criminal investigations, but the idea that we should castrate it for this reason is ridiculous. The dinosaur who raised this complaint is clearly a digital immigrant. Most of his generation lacks the level of familiarity necessary to effectively investigate crimes involving the internet. The problem goes beyond a simple matter of training. A good investigator needs an intuitive understanding of how people interact with their world, including the internet, more than they need an intimate understanding of protocols.

The next generation of investigators will be digital natives. They'll have grown up with the web, email, blogs, message boards, IM, flickr, youtube, social networking, and the like. They won't all have CCNAs, but they'll have a sufficient understanding of how people use the internet to know when to bring in forensic experts.

The transition will be difficult. The digital immigrants with extensive investigative experience and the digital natives who are novices in their profession will have to cooperate and exchange their knowledge and wisdom, and in the meantime, some criminals will slip through the cracks. That's the price of progress.

spam is just a special case of "cybercrime"

[Darkforge]

so we can re-use our old forms. It's a bit surprising how effective this is.

--

Patrick J. Dempsey, your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting international "cybercrime." Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from nation to nation.)

( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) legitimate Internet uses would be affected
(x) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) it is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) it will protect us for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) users of the Internet will not put up with it
(x) microsoft will not put up with it
(x) the police will not put up with it
(x) requires too much cooperation from criminals
(x) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

specifically, your plan fails to account for

(x) laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) lack of centrally controlling authority for the Internet
(x) open relays in foreign countries
( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) asshats
(x) jurisdictional problems
( ) unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) huge existing software investment in the Internet
(x) willingness of users to install os patches received by email
(x) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes
( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) extreme profitability of international crime
(x) joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) technically illiterate politicians
( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with criminals
(x) dishonesty on the part of criminals themselves
( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) blacklists suck
(x) whitelists suck
( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored
( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) sending email should be free
(x) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) i don't want the government reading my email
( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

furthermore, this is what i think about you:

( ) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
(x) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Common but fallacious reasoning

[AdamHaun]

1. I can't do my job because of X.
2. Changing X would fix that problem.
3. Therefore, we should change X.

With no regard for whether X has any value of its own. Open your eyes and look outside of your own field before you decide to change the world in your favor.

ummm

[djupedal]

"The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight..."

I think Mr. Dempsey misspelled 'all'...

typical law enforcement drumbeat

[drDugan]

"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.

At first I thought he was crazy

[dubl-u]

Upon reading the article summary, I thought the guy must be nuts.

After reading the article, however, and carefully thinking about his ideas, I've concluded that he is instead an idiot.

Has this man never heard of Metcalfe's Law? His second, registration-only internet will be about as popular as BITNET and Telenet are these days. (Yes, Virginia there were globe-spanning networks before the Internet. It's true!)

While he's at it, he might as well call for a second telephone system, one that only allows people to say nice things.

In light of the real issue:

[merc]

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:

I call for a second FBI.

Actually, yes.

[Max Littlemore]

"Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

Actually, the internet is a sanctuary for cyber criminals. You don't find cyber criminals holding up armoured trucks at gun point, regular meat criminals do that, you find cyber criminals on the interwebs. That's why they're cyber criminals. The intertubes are a sanctuary for cyber criminals for exactly the same reason that the FBI is a sanctuary for corrupt FBI agents.

I totally recommend creating a second internet, and a second FBI, a second stock market, a second local primary school. Everything.

No one thing should get all the cred for harbouring criminals. If people want to be paranoid and really stupid, let them be paranoid and really stupid and have a good laugh at their expense.

Buggy Whip FBI

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, and these newfangled "automobiles" make it so much harder for the cops to catch crooks, since the cops now have to move so much faster, and even cooperate with cops in the next county. Instead of the cops getting automobiles and some radios of their own, we should get rid of automobiles, make them illegal, and instead give everyone some other kind of automobiles that all have cutoff switches in their motors that cops can stop with their radios.

And no criminals will ever figure out how to wire around the cutoff switches. Then cops can just go back to being lazy again. Oh, and by the way, we should let the cops trample all over our rights that we discarded because protecting those rights was too much work.

I feel safer already. Don't you?

Call for Second FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

... where the agents are significantly smarter than this ex First FBI agent.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[mentaldrano]

Seriously, does it surprise anyone that law enforcement wants a more "secure" and hence traceable, internet? The Law is moving in on this frontier; some of the residents demand it, and cops always want more power.

Heinlein wrote about this decades ago - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Great read, and extremely relevant.

On a Related Note

[PAjamian]

Former FBI Official Imaj Oke stated today that We need a new earth due to the massive amounts of crime and terrorism on this one.

"Our current planet is so rife with criminal activity that we need to populate a new planet that will be restricted only to fully law abiding citizens." He said at an interview earlier this afternoon, "Once we have established the new planet the old one will, of course no longer be necessary and will be dismantled for parts."

Oke went on to describe the technical merits of the new planet stating that life on the planet would be fully controlled by benevolent corporate monopoly interests to ensure that nobody's intellectual property is infringed.

Exactly what we need!

[phliar]

Yes, we need a new Good Internet that the FBI, SS, RIAA, etc. will make safe and legal for everyone. The rest of us will stay on this one (to be renamed Evilnet).

Re:Restricting to VPN

[r_jensen11]

requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction. I would love to see the results of only restricting convicted pedo's to only VPN's.

Pedo 1: a.s.l?
Pedo 2: 13, f, nyc. u?
Pedo 1: 12, f, nyc 2! Hmm, a network of only 13-year-olds.... So the real question is, would it be one giant digg?

We've already got an RFC for this

[david_thornley]

Can't he just recommend that routers check for the "evil bit"? It would be about as effective and much easier.

Two Words: Anonymous Layer

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooo how are they going to stop people from just layering an anonymous protocol on top of whatever they force on to people?

Soooo how are they going to stop people from encrypting data and obfuscating it?

Soooo how are they going to stop people form implementing a "slow drip" protocol through random nodes which is also encrypted?

There is absolutely no way to police the Internet without significantly impacting response times, etc. QoS will suck and they will still never be able to touch 99.99% of the "criminals".

Re:Two Words: Anonymous Layer

[Dan541]

We are already working on a second "Internet" its called "Freenet" and it aims to eliminate many of the current problems with the Internet such as censorship and accountability.

Segregating the Internet!!!! Why do I get dejavu when I think of that? Oh what that's how it all started.

Honestly this idiot is suggesting we work backwards and devolve the Internet.

~Dan

Cybercrime can be stopped without monitoring!

[EvilNTUser]

This has to be the only reason, in fact, and not just one of them. Cybercrime can be stopped without any monitoring!

The article talks about hacking into bank accounts and identity theft etc. So if the government wants to crack down on this, why don't they just mandate that banks have to send their customers a bootable read only flash drive that contains a basic operating system, browser, SSL certificates and a one time pad? It wouldn't matter how badly some clueless moron's computer was trojaned to hell, because the bank would only accept connections from the booted flash drive.

You can't get mugged on the internet. You can't be coerced on the internet. Criminals need YOUR COOPERATION.

The U.S. could also stop using checks like every other civilized country, because they're a ridiculously huge security hole and a huge pain in the ass compared to direct bank transfer. But all of this would make too much sense, because none of it involves more government monitoring of its citizens.

The land of the free. Where no laws must ever tell corporations what to do, but citizens must compensate for their ineptness by being spied upon.

Re:Cybercrime can be stopped without monitoring!

[Dekortage]

You can't get mugged on the internet. You can't be coerced on the internet. Criminals need YOUR COOPERATION.

Well, that is almost true. With certain Windows exploits, you can be doing perfectly normal things on your PC and still become infected. You can even have a firewall and anti-virus/anti-spam spam filter.

Unless, of course, you think that "cooperation with criminals" means "I don't digitally arm my computer to the hilt with every possible kind of protection, down-to-the-second patches, and anti-hacker voodooo ninjas." Just because my house is not surrounded by a moat filled with hungry pirahnna, does not somehow mean that I am cooperating with thieves. Next you're going to blame women for being raped...

Re:Two Words: Anonymous Layer

[ultranova]

Why is accountability for your own actions ever a problem?

"You were hiding jews in your house ? Prepare to die !"

Accountability means that you are accountable to someone. That someone can easily abuse his powers; Hell, even the finnish police, the police of the state repeatedly voted the least corrupt in the world, began abusing the kiddie porn filter immediately after it was implemented. There is no authority worth the trust accountability requires.

Unfortunately, in Real Life, accountability is a neccessity. While it inevitably leads to abuses, lack of it means us violent monkeys live up to our murderous nature and rape, kill and loot each other. That's why we have governments, nation-states and courts of law.

However, it is impossible to murder anyone in the Internet. It is just as impossible to rape them, or cut a single hair from their heads. It is impossible to even rob them - altought it is possible to spy on them enough to gain access to their online accounts, which is one of the reasons why I don't have any. In fact it is impossible to do anything except say something nasty to them.

So, why would we need accountability in the Internet ? Who, exactly speaking, is actually being hurt by the spam, botnets or porn ? No one.

No, this "accountability online" is simply a guise for tracking down the people who leak nasty secrets of politicians and corporations, in order to punish them and thus cause a chilling effect. Internet and especially the anonymous protocols working on top of it - such as Tor and Freenet - are every politicians worst nightmare: an information propagation channel they can't block. "The truth shall set you free", so is it any wonder that every overlord in history has tried to prevent it from getting out ?

A democratic society - indeed, any free society - needs an anonymous communication channel with no accountability of what you say. If that is also useful for criminals, then that is simply the price you have to pay. The alternative is freedom of speech a la Soviet Russia: you are free to pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "down with communism", but you'll be sent to a Siberian labor camp for it.

The internet is unsafe???

[holyspidoo]

My net is completely safe:

My ISP caps my download so I can't download evil viruses

My ISP throttles my p2p traffic so I can't download music and become infected with the terrorist virus and become one of them like the RIAA video says

My websurfing experience constantly pops up with anticybercrime tools that I can buy for only 19.95, I have 204 of those tools installed so far

I have norton, so my internet apps are all blocked anyways and my computer is too slow to let me experience the web and get terrible cybercrime done to me.

Also, I installed vista SP1 and now my computer boots to a blue screen so it is even safer.

Why another internet?

PS. Without my PC, I decided to go play outside and got hit by a bus. Damn you internet!!!