Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf Says It's Every Machine For Itself
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian has an interesting story on Vint Cerf, the 'father of the internet,' in which he says there's no silver bullet for scammers, spammers and criminals running zombie networks and porn-to-porn file swapping because 'the internet was designed that way.' Cerf adds, 'Like every medium, the internet can be abused. When we think about it, we can commit fraud locally and internationally using the telephone system and postal service.' However, Cerf is also convinced that it's the internet's openness — in allowing people with new ideas to do their thing without getting anyone's permission — that is the main source of its power, and he is against the idea of a two-tier internet with a trusted, controlled 'overnet' for commercial and business use, and an 'undernet' where anything goes. 'My bias right now tends to be "It's every man for himself" — you need to be suspicious whether you're inside the trusted cloud or not, and when it fails, the house of cards tends to collapse.'"
The internet isn't totally free, never was, and never will be.
When corporations have a firewall, they are creating a "gated community" where they provide additional restrictions on acceptable behavior in order to create a more predictable environment. This is OK, this is normal, and this is the "Overnet" that the summary speaks of.
This is *always* the case. In my household, we follow additional rules of the household that aren't required on the street. My house is, therefore, a sort of "gated community" where not "anything goes". This is human nature, and will apply to virtually any product with wide acceptance.
Firewalls, NAT, differing connection speeds, and many other factors provide different Internet "neighborhoods" with different rules of acceptability and feasibility. You don't want youtube videos on a 19.2 Kbps modem. You don't play 1st person shooters over a satellite internet connection, no matter how "fast" it is. You don't do virus research at work. You don't host a bank of servers on your home DSL connection.
All of these are limitations. Get used to it.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Both Heaven and Hell have gates. Not sure which one I'd prefer. Have to let you know.
Your reply is somewhat akin to someone saying that we should keep free speech since it's a net positive, and you replying that free speech doesn't exist because you don't allow your children to swear. He's arguing that we need to avoid systemic overnets and undernets. Roping off your own network with different rules doesn't have anything to do with TFA.
TFA wants to avoid having these things built into the entire internet from end to end, which is what some people say we need. Patchwork restrictions and rules are to be expected and encouraged where appropriate, but having it built in from end to end is what we're talking about.
Good points you make, but I wouldn't say that is the same thing as the two-tier internet. Those are individual business and personal decisions.
Those communities don't change the internet in anyway for the rest of us. If I choose to not have internet at all, am I then creating another 'gated' community?
Yeah it would be great if it were "every man for himself" and everyone made sure to protect themselves. However, that idea went out the window when the internet became main-stream. If everyone that used the internet were tech-savvy enough to protect themselves, this would be a non-issue. So do we need to tell all of the older people, children, and computer-idiots that use the internet that they're just out of luck since they don't understand the complications in using such an open medium? We could, but I don't think that's exactly fair.
To me, it's the equivalent of saying, "OK you're of age to drive on the nation's interstate system. So we're not going to put up any speed limits or signs/signals/regulatory devices. It's every man for himself... good luck."
Unfortunately, educating people isn't going to cut it. And I wish it was. I'm all for putting banks and anything related to finances on a more-secure, separate network. Unfortunately, we can't rely on end-users to protect themselves.
Every file, every page, should have metadata listing any number of digital signatures. We should be able to easily see who created the data, who says that person is legit, and whether the data has been tampered with.
How would that work with regard to those who want anonymity? One of the strengths of the Internet is the ability to not be me. I may whistle-blow and not put my family in danger. Without a doubt, there would be far few flametards about if everyone had to present identification, but I do not see that gain being worth the loss of writing unpopular things without fear.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
It's not the submitter - the phrase is in the article.
Guardian is pretty tabloidish.