Slashdot Mirror
China Wants UN To Help Trace Sources On Internet
An anonymous reader brings us a CNet story, which begins:
"A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the 'IP Traceback' drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public. The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network."
Wouldn't the ISPs have to be in on this? And there are always still proxies...
--
find my ip address
They are usually dog slow but at least they think your message comes from Argentina or South Africa.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
First po....wait someone at the door
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes. While there are definitely troubling implications to being able to identify people on the Internet (especially considering who's involved here.. China and the NSA..), being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
since when is being anonymous a right. frankly the way people try to term everything as some kind of intrinsic right pisses me off
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I believe that we all have the right to be anonymous up and until the time we do criminal activities,Spamming,phishing,sexual harassment and so on. If they have a tool it should only be used for finding criminals and not government dissidents as it would be used by china and any country that suppresses there people. They should not have access to this tool.
Jack of all trades,master of none
when the americans and the chinese have the same goals
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If the tech community makes enough buzz about this, it's likely that we can put the pin back in this grenade. Nobody is going to want to support violating the sanctity of The Internet in an important U.S. election year!
There already exists a process for getting a name from an I.P. address, and that process thankfully requires court action / subpoena of ISP. Let's keep them in the loop, and make this tracing a relatively hard thing to get, with lots of human approvals needed.
Hopefully, this proposed short-circuiting of the judicial branch will just help the United Nations -- totally overstepping its proper bounds -- slide into further irrelevance. Even if the U.N. does serve a proper function in today's world, this certainly is way beyond its domain.
--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
When people begin to look for ways to stop you, you're on the right track.
The United Stats (TFS:"The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group") and major western corporations (PDF linked from article) also support the proposal. What a surprise.
"What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg"
Wait... How can you correctly use this service? It seems like something only the clandestine agencies and major corporations of the world would like to see happen.
Anyways, according to TFS, this proposal would almost certainly have to modify existing protocols. Can't that be blocked by the CS/Engineering community members who sit on respective committees? Can international/national governments really force IETF to do something, as the article claims?
So long as you're not doing anything illegal - you know, the laws on the books or the ones arbitrarily made up to fit a specific situation, you have nothing to fear.
Further, China has a long history of tolerating dissent on the Internet. After a few years of solitary confinement and re-programming, all parties usually look back on the incident and laugh.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Steve Bellovin (granddaddy of IP firewalling) gives his (strongly negative) opinion here. He points out that it would be in seeming contradiction to the UN Charter.
Anyone who doesn't want to be caught already uses some form of obfuscation, and I don't see how adding "tracing" to the IP protocol (presumably some kind of unique signature in the packet which doesn't get stripped out in routing) could possibly stop even current techniques.
For example, how could they possibly defeat proxy servers? A proxy server rewrites the request totally, keeping no part of the original packet. Proxy servers are not perfect, they can be snooped locally or via timing attacks at say the national gateway level, but I can't see how this would work.
Also, just think about the glacial implementation pace of IPv6 - and I don't think there's any special "tracing" function in that. Now another protocol? Good luck with that.
So, an impossible-to-get-implemented new protocol which is easily defeated anyway. It's a bad idea, evil even IMO, but I'm not too worried about freedom of speech on the internet for the time being.
Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Should we fine them over cracking/hacking charges :P
...why the little policeman at the edge of their screen is happy.
He knows where they live.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Free speech is a natural right. It is something anyone can do that can only be eliminated by state actions of the most oppressive and wasteful kinds. Nothing is more wasteful or oppressive than state efforts to identify and retaliate against people who say things the state does not like. Speech without anonymity is not free and states that make efforts to eliminate anonymity in speech are unAmerican.
Shame on the US for cooperating with China to eliminate free speech on the internet. Such a program would obviously violate the first amendment to the US Constition which bans all laws that infringe on freedom of speech and press.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What really irritates me is that just sending or receiving an e-mail from a particular address, or even general location, could be enough to get you well and truly screwed. Time for some kind of TwInternet...one that includes a whole bunch of off-shore infrastructure that scrubs stuff thoroughly on its way from A to B. One without a bunch of fascists in the driver's seat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Part of Madison's (and other's) objection to the Bill of Rights was that enumerating rights would later be interpreted to mean that non-enumerated rights as not being as important or even worse unprotected. This was an important reason why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added.
In short, even without the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government (and some would argue the States via the 13th and 14th Amendments) is in theory extremely limited in what it can do and the people are given extremely large rights and freedoms.
Since the court packing threat in the 1930s the Commerce Clause has been expanded so as to make much some of that meaningless - much to our detriment.
I'm not saying they're a represssive totalitarian obsolete regime bent on owning the world's raw resources.
I'm just saying in a game show the M.C. would say to China: "You are the biggest problem. Good bye."
Ehud
Just look at your POTS phone service. Here the government has been able to add laws and taxes for over half a century. And they have: Full traceback, full surveillance access as well as: Access tax, federal excist tax, state tax, local tax, Universal service tax, 911 tax, LNP tax and TRS tax.
Expect the internet to be worse than this over time.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Oh wait....
This sounds like a joke... Incredible!
I can't believe the Chicoms might actually pull this one off..
The not-so-anonymous coward..
Only if you don't spend it. And if you cannot spend it, why bother?
Well, that bothers me, too. One should just remember that anonymous Swiss account were created to protect Jews from Nazi prosecution. But, still, the police has plenty of ways to investigate suspicious fortunes without intruding into bank accounts. Like, let's say, check the IRS returns for that guy with the Rolls Royce, Ferrari, and yacht who's building that big house over there. Any big transaction is bound to become public by other means than snooping into people's private lives.
It would seem that a lot of people would like to find out the information about users BEHIND the great firewall...
What struck me about this, is the fact that such things always seem to be designed by committee. I'm currently in the process of designing network hardware, and every time I look at IPv4 I can't help thinking: there's 8 too many bytes in the IPv4 header. One should have source and destination addresses, a length, a ttl and sub-protocol number. Everything else is just design-by-committee candy. That leads to two conclusions (for me at least): if you want to make a good spec, you should keep things simple, and 2) if you want to stop this kind of invasive nonsense, you should also keep things simple. It's nice when 'good' and 'non-invasive' seem to go hand in hand so well. I hope that the (much more influential than me) people who design the stuff that we all have to live with for years to come, take this to heart.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=962521&cid=24987083
The UN Human Rights Council was recently taken over by extremist Islamic states, who redefined the role of the council as protecting the world from "abuses" of free speech.
So China now has an ally in the UN.
In a few years, "unislamic" content providers will start to feel the heat.
A big fan of thought-crimes are we .... and prior restraint? Lots of excuses for thought-crime laws ... and most them lead to the Stalinist gun_barrel!
Seig-Heil Komrade
We still won more medals than them overall and it doesn't mean shit when it was just a daycare center for the Chinese. America has so many superior athletes overall compared to any other country, our athletes are happy in life compared to the Chinese and they can go back to life without being deserted.
Additionally you are speaking as if you are from outside of the U.S., so therefore your country must have done terrible in the olympics.
I cannot help that Americans are superior to you in the Olympics....U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
I am going out to surf right now and do some garden work later, you and the rest of the clones can continue on hating America around here.
Oh did I forget to mention.... U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!
Free speech is a natural right.
No! Free speech is not a natural right. We just live in a country where we have free speech.
Actually the USA did pretty well considering China has 2 or 3 times more people, and that China takes gifted children away from there parents at age 4 to force them to slave for the Olympics. Why do you think that Russia did so terrible compared to the cold war days...they don't enslave there children any more. Its called free choice. If I am talented at gymnastics and I choose to pursue an engineering career then that is my own damn choice. The fact that the US did as well as we did (more medals than China) is still impressive.
Um.. no.. look at the final medal count. China only won the gold medal count, and that was because of a lot of the standard 'home field advantage' that happens in EVERY Olympics. The US 'won' the Olympics with total medal count of 110 vs China's 100. Plus we have Micheal Phelps. That guy should have been in every sport with water... water polo, synchronized swimming.. you name it.
No.. we blame China because it is an oppressive regime who doesn't give a crap about human rights.
Any government who engages in 're-education' should be destroyed by any means necessary. So yes, I blame China for a lot of things, the deserve it. And just for the record, since someone with take things I have said and apply them wrong. I am not refering the to the Chinese people. I have a great respect for Chinese history and culture prior to the 'cultural revolution'. No.. it is the Chinese government I can not stand. I would gladly line them all up and put a bullet in there collective heads (that includes all tyrants like Putin, Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, and so many more. Heck.. I will even pull the trigger AND pay for the bullets.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
There are mostly two reasons for posting as Anonymous Coward. One is that you want to say something you know is not nice and don't want to be linked to it (avoid social stigma). Another is that you want to say something that a powerful recipient thinks is not nice, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, and anonymity is your only physical protection from that powerful recipient.
The Question nobody is asking, "WHY DO THE POWERFUL NOT WANT THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD?" The answer, of course, is that THEY are the REAL cowards! Greedy, too! They don't want any competition with the "memes" they spout. Especially because they know most of those memes are lies. They will get kicked out of their cushy powerful positions if the truth comes out. Any time a Government thinks it has to know who is exposing its lies, it is the Government who should be investigated, not the exposer!!!
Ya, cant let our citizens speak out without being identifiable by the government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well thats easy: By definition, governments don't like unabated anonymous speech.
The ability to ( effectively ) hide is what scares the government the most about the internet.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(For our chineese brothers and sisters - who will have true freedom of speach one day)
Use Case
1.5 Proxy "Safe harbor" A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.
... prohibits all secrecy with regard to laws, or the development processes for all laws.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A person makes an intelligent point and you post something like 'Score -2 stupid American?
I am an American. IMO, we should pull out of the UN. It is a failed idea, corrupted by dictators and tyrants. It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
So how about a Mod down to Troll for this A-Hole.
Score -3: Even Stupider Fox-American.
The UN is useless. The only reason it hasn't gone the way of the League of Nations is because of nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has done more to prevent another World War than the UN ever did.
It depends on your agenda. if you are trying to slowly move to a one world government situation with each country losing its sovereignty and all laws dropping to the lowest common denominator, then you are still on track for that goal to be successful.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> Um.. no.. look at the final medal count. China only won the gold medal count, and that was because of a lot of the standard 'home field advantage' that happens in EVERY Olympics
Funny how the US is the only country to order the table that way (as far as I looked). The rest of the world sort by gold, then silver, then bronze, and they think you're pathetic for ordering it any other way.
The US is best at losing, that's all. I best the US would be best if you counted all the other positions too. Heck, what happens if you include all the Paralympics into consideration too. Oh, it seems that the US loses on total too, if you do that.
I stand by my 'thrashed' statement.
Max.
So now we're teaming up with the Chinese to develop better ways to spy on people.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I know, I know — America's NSA is "in on it" too (and most will, no doubt, suspect, that their participation is due to the worst intentions). But, at least, they are our spies — subject to our laws, responsible to our lawmakers.
Any increase of control over the Internet by the UN automatically means increase of control by China, Russia, et al. "The world", which, for example, is still unsure, who did 9/11 talks about being "multipolar" — they should be careful, what they wish for...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The more they try to control it, the more people will revolt and go against it.
... then it will just be hacked by spammers and the origin will be forged.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I find it incredibly backwards that China is asking for this. It is practically impossible to get any kind of justice from China, which is why a large number of hosts treat Chinese IPs as hostile. If you get scammed by someone within the great firewall, there is no legal recourse.
If China wants to play with the rest of the world, they need to start playing by our rules. I'm sure we all want to tap into their demographic, but until we can do that in a safe and controller manner, I don't see any reason why we should grant them any privileges.
With privilege comes responsibility.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
You don't own the internet, and you don't have any rights, other then perhaps consumer rights from your ISP (minimum level of acceptable service, etc).
Its like suggesting we have a right to force power companies to supply power to anonymous homes. Theres no such thing. You can ask to remain anonymous to your power company, but thats upto the power companies to decide, otherwise they can decline (which they almost always would)
Being anonymous on the internet isn't a right, its not even a privildge, its simply how the internet works.
If the internet changes so that you can no longer be anonymous, your rights haven't been effected. Your options for anonymous outlets have been been reduced.
The only rights people have (unless they own a telecommuntion company that might be affected by this) are the rights of a consumer.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
I have no idea why some cowards would want to remain anonymous.
AC troll = success
(troll rubs hands with glee as it counts outraged replies, regards its diminutive and all-too-short-lived stiffy with wonder, knows in its heart of hearts that it would never get another if people would stop feeding trolls, plots next troll with renewed sense of purpose)
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
I'm sure a cyber-terrorist attack will be fabricated inorder to make this look necessary... At which point everyone will shriek SAVE US... if only people will see how easily we're being played in the 21st century lol
It's been a longstanding chronic misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to conclude that anything in those documents attempts to define anonymity as a "right". No one has a right to be anonymous. You might get away with remaining somewhat anonymous in this or that context - say, the Internet - for a period of time, but it's not a right. "No man is an island"... ever heard that cliche? What it means is that what you do has an effect on others around you, unless you actually live alone on an island Crusoe-like. You don't, do you? As a consequence, those other people have a right to know who the hell you are and what the hell you're up to, because your actions might very well involve or affect them.
This is exactly why so many people hate(d) small towns: the small-town paradigm, where everybody knows everyone else and what they're up to, is exactly the sort of ethical underpinning that is required. Yank people out of those small towns and drop them into a big impersonal metropolis, where people can often get away with a considerable degree of anonymity, and they tend to behave in ways they wouldn't have dared in the small town.
We need the small-town paradigm and its absence of anonymity, if we hope to preserve any shred of our ethical heritage. Jefferson and the Founders never had this in mind. Britain is actually attempting to solve this problem, amidst all the whining about Big Brother. Personally I think they could easily deflect that criticism by making all the cameras available via feeds on the 'Net, so that any citizen can watch them and report on what they see... a sort of Neighborhood Watch, rather than Big Brother.
and Obama (who worships at the altar of the U.N.) is seen leading the cheers. If you think your rights are in danger from Bush and conservatives, just wait until the lefties have their way. The left was responsible for millions of deaths in the last century. Now they are going for a new record in this century.
Abolishing anonymity (read: total impunity) for criminals and troublemakers on the Internet can only be a good thing.
I know that this POV would be highly unfashionable amongst the long-haired anarchist libertoons that infest Slashdot and the FOSS community in general, but I completely fail to see why 'privacy' should always trump the rule of law.
If you don't like the way things work in your country, then you can either exercise your right to vote for somebody who agrees with you, or in countries where you can't you can employ more direct methods. If you're hell bent on fighting the Man, anonymity on the Internet won't buy you much. If you want to be a martyr or revolutionary, the mere existence of the Internet is not going to obviate the need to spill your own blood to maintain your freedom.
All anonymity and privacy on the Internet buys us, is the situation we have now: total anarchy and impunity for every shade of grifter, fraudster, racketeer and con artist out there. There's a very good reason why every criminal piece of shit on the planet is flocking to cybercrime in droves: the chances of being held to account for one's actions (especially if you're determined) are infinitesimally small.
The problem is so bad, that cybercrime now makes more money than the drugs trade. And the idiot libertoon bedroom freedom fighters amongst you are partly to blame.
You can't kick out China or the US; they have permanent seats on the security council. And you can't kick out Israel because there are an awful lot of influential Jews and other pro-Israel folks in the US who will vote out any party that lets that happen--quite aside from the fact that the anti-Israel cohort in the UN (let's call them, oh, the Arab League, which isn't entirely true but is true-ish) would vote Israel out even without reason, so most of the time when the US vetoes an anti-Israel motion it actually happens to be the right thing to do.
OK, redo the table. Include the paralympics too, and device the number of medals by population.
That would be interesting...I'll bet that the USA doesn't come anywhere near top.
Max.
If only the autorities spent as much energy doing something REAL about burglars (house breakers), muggers, rapists and all the other low-lifes that make everyday law abiding people's lives a f-ing misery.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Yes, there is a big controversy over the government wiretapping without a warrant, but that doesn't change (what the article is talking about) the ability to be anonymous. We still have free internet cafes and other points we can get to the internet anonymously and post dissident material, which is a bedrock of our society. The court even struck down a state anti-spam law because it removed the right to anonymity.
for me i consider privacy a right, but anonymity is purely dependant on the situation. should scammers have the right to post shit anonymously? of course they don't, hence it's not a "right".
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
Unfortunately in Italy you cannot anonymously go into an internet caffee. At least according to the law, you need to show an ID. Besides being police-state bullshit, this has lots of annoying practical implications. For instance a cafee or hotel cannot simply leave an open wireless access point in it's premises for it's customer's convenience, it needs to have individual authentication for each user, and ID them all (which isn't big news for hotels, since you can't even check in at a hotel in Italy, without an ID!)
While I, as a citizen of the U.S., find it somewhat alarming that a member of the NSA would be involved in the group that is working on this proposal, I admit that's a knee-jerk reaction. Things may have gone pretty far south in this country because of the last eight years or so of administrations, but we haven't had the First Admendment repealed either -- not that some haven't wished for it or tried (reference: G.W. Bush saying the Constitution is "only a piece of paper"). Still having a measure of belief that what the U.S. was originally founded on hasn't been (completely) destroyed, I'll foster the hope that the NSA's involvement in this is more likely largely to keep an eye on what China has brewing -- at best to keep it in check, at worst to at least see what's coming.
Something that occurred to me while I was reading TFA: Wouldn't IPv6 be an intrinsic part of a traceback technology? We certainly all believe that IPv4 address space is rapidly running out, and that ostensibly IPv6 is going to "save us", and we've all heard that everyone on the planet could be issued an IPv6 address that personally identifies them. After reading TFA, it's more than possible that IPv6 was created in part with traceback in mind. Will this sort of technology be forced down the world's throat by the U.N.? Extremely unlikely. The U.S., for one, (as stated in TFA) would not go along with it, as it does fly in the face of the First Amendment -- although admittedly, the intelligence community, in collusion with American ISPs, already can track and trace individual's activities on the internet (or at least the less adept and less wary users). Technologies like Secure SHell, proxies, and Tor (among others) currently provide layers of protection that, I think, are adequate, and well-known to the more technically-savvy. Aside from the U.S., there are enough countries in the world that will object to this sort of technology and will not stand idly by and watch the rest of the world potentially infringe on the rights of their citizens.
So far as I'm concerned, China can do whatever they want within their own borders. So far as I'm concerned, things like this will only increase the level of unrest with Chinese citizens and increase the possibility of uprising.
All China and the NSA has to do is host the nodes people connect to when becoming anonymous.
What I don't understand is why the UN, the NSA and China are working together. It does not seem to serve the strategic interests of any one of these groups because they all want to crack down on anonymous communication domestically while promoting it in foreign countries.
How exactly can you have human rights if you don't have freedom of speech? And if you don't have freedom of speech how can you have freedom of thought?
Governments will be able to censor the mere idea of human rights by simply tracking down the sources that produce those ideas, and suddenly there are no more human rights anywhere because nobody will be able to think about the concept.
I'm paranoid because I want to maximise my anonymity and by maximising my anonymity I'm indestructable because I'm untraceable. By being untraceable and censorship-resistent, no one can harm me which results in a 100% fullfilment of the human rights in that having the "right to life, liberty and security" (as stated in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), not "[being] held in slavery" (as stated in article 4 of the UDHR), not "[being] subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (article 5, UDHR), not "[being subjeted to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (article 9, UDHR), not "[being] subjected to arbitrary interference with [my] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon [my] honour and reputation", "[having] the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" (article 18, UDHR), "[having] the right of freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19, UDHR), "[having] the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association" (article 20.1, UDHR), "[having] the right to freely to participate in the cultural life of the community" (article 27.1, UDHR).
Yeah, goodluckwiththat assholes.
...I'm paranoid because I want to maximise my anonymity and by maximising my anonymity I'm indestructable because I'm untraceable. By being untraceable and censorship-resistent, no one can harm me which results in a 100% fullfilment of the human rights in that having the "right to life, liberty and security" (as stated in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), not "[being] held in slavery" (as stated in article 4 of the UDHR), not "[being] subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (article 5, UDHR), not "[being subjeted to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (article 9, UDHR), not "[being] subjected to arbitrary interference with [my] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon [my] honour and reputation", "[having] the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" (article 18, UDHR), "[having] the right of freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19, UDHR), "[having] the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association" (article 20.1, UDHR), "[having] the right to freely to participate in the cultural life of the community" (article 27.1, UDHR).
And it was generally seen as a Good Thing. How times change, huh?
What time we have left before the only alternative is to build a private citizen internet? Governments by their nature want to control all sphere of communications.
Its a coincidence and special path it took to bring Internet to masses have kept it
safe from control.Yet its not immune from control from the backbone(core ISPs).
Its not limited to some "totalitarian country","evil corporation","three letter agency".Everyone want to have data on what is going on:marketers,intelligence agencies,website owners,etc.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a link between this effort and IPv6. Tracing back to a device becomes much easier when dynamic IP addressing is no longer necessary. I imagine that, at some point, much like digital TV broadcast, IPv6 will be thrust upon us. As far as I'm concerned it is much easier to abandon television, than any of the potentially networked devices of tomorrow.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
So yes, I can see them doing this too.
Hopefully the new policy will balance out ones personal privacies and the right to in forced laws when a crime has been committed. While on a world scale this might be a little difficult because there are different views on what each government might view as personal rights. However we, the USA, still asks other government to track down criminal activities that occur in other country when the crime has occurred in our country so a world policy on agreeing that said government where criminal activates occur and that of another government will comply might be good. The problem will occur when the crime is perceived to be minor in the one country but not so minor in the country that wants to enforce its laws. I think people are hoping that this policy will help in force people to work together to in force law when another country might choice not too. Does this mean Microsoft will be able to finally in force the legal use of its software in the Asian market? I guess we will see.
You think they have full traceback? Ever looked at how skypeout works? Or how dialout on a ISDN PRI works?
You don't get valid caller ID. You have to be in the loop to see the real time SS7 information, and then still have to get someone to translate the IP Address to a physical location. Oops, its a coffee house WiFi network. Sorry, we don't know who called.
And that is just in the U.S. What about international calls? Think caller ID is reliable there?
If they get what they want for the Internet, it will be far more than they have now for telephones.
Why do we bother? Perhaps it's easier for everyone if all the cables to China are cut. Let them live in their own little glass bubble instead. If they want to play ball, they need to play by our rules (at least for the time being).
Yes I am posting as an "Anonymous Coward"
Nope not Chinese, I am however one of the owners of a small ISP. Personally I think the so called "right to be anonymous" is a bunch of crap. This was and always has been a mistake and the result is a lot of things like harassment, Spam and network attacks. All of which could be reduced in huge amounts simply by people online being able to be identified.
Regarding Proxies... it can be coded away.
If we met on the street I would introduce myself and you would introduce yourself, why on earth anyone ever thought people should be Anonymous online beats me... oh yeah it was stalkers from the other side of the world might get you.
Don't worry all of you afraid of your shadows, the people who use the internet for evil will fight to protect your right to privacy along with all the anti spam software companies and the privacy companies that all make millions from this scam.
So carry on with your right to privacy BS... oh yeah your mom or wife might find out you spend hours surfing porn.
If anonymity is to be sacrificed then liability for Identity Theft should become a real recourse. Compromising someone's anonymity is the first logical step in compromising their identity. All arguments about free speech aside, I think anonymity is something that has protected the vast majority of internet users from the lax security standards of most organisations that collect identity information.
I mean once an organization a users identity, it's easy to make the argument to track their usual IP location, their mobile device and any trace back data that might come in handy - if it's available. Surely having all this data collected in various places would increase the vectors for attack and validation and make it much easier for identity theft to occur.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
i could have the exact same argument with money that financials should be private.
And it should be private.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Can we just depower government somehow so we don't have to keep preventing them from doing stupid things all the time? I think Ron Paul was right. We need to constitutionally limit all government and then we won't have to watch them so closely and we can get back to doing things that matter.
The arguments about abuse by governments are fundamentally flawed:
So CointelPro wasn't real? Neither was Watergate. And J Edgar Hoover never had secret files? That's just recently in the US never mind other tymes and places.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, the Supreme Court does not give rights.
Then don't complain when they take them away.
I will complain when they take my rights away. I'm sure if you don't want them the Dear Leader would love to take them away from you.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. As do some of the USA's Founding Fathers, otherwise they would have signed their names on the Federalist Papers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Proxies won't be a problem in sourcing IP's -- the proxy owner is the source. Do that enough and the "proxy problem" will go away... ;~!
Except the republocrate will just vote themselves more power again. The system of checks and ballances work nice in that no branch of the government really get's much power over another, but it doesn't stop the growth of power, scope, and invasiveness of the government on the people.
PS. The man suggestion for republocrates in spell checker is Hippocrates. I thought it was funny.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
and probably loathes penny arcade, we must stop the evil commies! Hey CHINA! FUCK YOU! (I was once a normal person till I got on /.)
Absolutely. Freedom of speech is not ingrained in human societies. And there are good reasons why the idea took roots in progressive cultures.
Freedom of speech has to be understood. People have to understand what it is, why it is important, then want it, fight for it, and guard against losing it.
Otherwise, it will be Galileo all over again.
The government IS constitutionally limited, the problem is those limits are being ignored.
I've said it before and I'll say it again;"Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N."
But this time I'll add "and stay out!" for added emphasis.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The Chinese proposed a method they want to use for tracing things such as Free Tibet traffic. I don't suppose that what they proposed would include methods for tracing attacks Chinese attacks against US computers, would it? No way they'd forget to include anything for which they had already developed a work around. The up side is, if the proposal gets accepted, it means the US already capable of tracing said traffic, which is almost certainly the case. Chinese hack attacks are characterized by incredible hubris -- they're into doing it far more than in doing it well.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
no. not troll or anything. just make a list of the adverse effects we have seen from chinese sources up to this date. not to mention repressing their own citizens.
and not surprisingly, another sh@t is in on this too, 'homeland security' -> the agency which defies u.s. constitution even by its own nature.
it will fail.
Read radical news here