Slashdot Mirror
Crime Expert Backs Call For "License To Compute"
The Cable Guy writes to mention that Russel Smith, one of Australia's principal criminologists, is pushing for first-time computer users to be required to earn a license to browse the web. "The Australian Computer Society launched computer driver's licenses in 1999. It aimed to give users a basic level of competency before they started using PCs. But the growth in cybercrime has led to IT security experts such as Eugene Kaspersky to call for more formalized recognition of a user's identity so they can travel the net safely. Last week Dr. Smith sat in front of a Federal Government Inquiry into cybercrime and advised Australia's senior politicians on initiatives in train to fight cybercrime. He said that education was secondary to better technology solutions."
more formalized recognition of a user's identity so they can travel the net safely
How does letting THEM, know who I am, make ME safer?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Classic example of trading freedom for "security", I can only hope this is not put through. This could also severely restrict younger peoples (legal) access to the internet, narrowing their horizons drastically.
Good sigs are hard to think of, bad sigs are a waste of time, that is why I invented, this lousy rhyme.
Techies have been joking about this for many decades.
Realistically though, we all know it's about as likely as needing a license to read or talk.
I find it hard to believe anyone is actually wanting such a concept to become law. What's next, a license for sex?
Honestly if this were like a drivers license test where even senior citizen's were taught basic computer skill's and had to pass a basic exam to purchase a computer, it would probably cut down on the number of zombies in botnets. It would guarantee that even the most technophobic in our society had the basic skills to protect himself and others. You can do alot of damage if your computer is taken over or hacked without your knowledge.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I can understand where they are coming from, but they are going to implement it wrong. (with the heavy-handed license approach) Rather, I think that computer literacy should be something that should be taught in school along with reading and math, since computer skills essential in this day and age. The class shouldn't be about how to use popular software, (although covering operating systems besides Windows would be a plus) but should cover basic skills instead. People need to learn why they shouldn't click the "greetingcard.exe" attachment in their email inbox or why it is a bad idea to share too much personal information online. People don't always pick on stuff like that by themselves, so it has to be taught.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
You don't need to "enforce" the license via law enforcement, although it could make it interesting in connection with legislation where your computer was found to be a member of a botnet if you didn't have one. All you need to do is require that businesses only employ computer operators who have a license. I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time getting a job as a delivery driver, say, without a valid driving license. How many career opportunities do you think that you'd have in the world if you need a license to use a computer for business. Pretty much any office work is out, and in theory you couldn't even work at McDonald's because their cash registers are actually PCs. It get's even more essential if ISPs need to see one to create an account, and technically modern mobile phones mean that could apply to cellular carriers too.
What you think of the idea is certainly up for discussion, but if you can get business on board then it very practical indeed.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It seems like yet another reason, to create yet another bureaucracy, to collect yet more fees from people for doing the same things that they do every day.
They should put that on billboards and every other kind of public service announcement all over the world. Not that it would work particularly well, but over time it might. Like the gradual reduction of smoking in the US.
>>> but if you can get business on board then it very practical indeed.
... from nearly every aspect. and in general it just sounds like another government bureaucracy that will be bloated and increase our taxes. to be honest, i'm surprised president obama hasn't already proposed this in america. but maybe he needs to gain control of the internet first, and then he will regulate it.
i still don't think it's practical
With any other country I'd be prepared to laugh it off, but the current Australian government is stupid, technologically ignorant and authoritarian enough to try this.
They're pushing for enough control of the internet as it is, a license to communicate in the first place is just begging for abuse.
If the incompetence of some of the drivers I see on the roads is any indication, I doubt an internet license will ultimately be very effective either in many cases.
If this gets sufficient attention to gain some traction in a sufficiently inclined governent, then I think you'll see government, the intelligence community, law enforcement and big media all jump on board with their lobbyists in tow PDQ. Then you've got all of the ICT contractors that service them and will inevitably see this as a fat revenue stream (whether the idea works or not). Frankly, I'm surprised we've got this far since 9/11 before the idea has come up in front of government as opposed to in an IT joke.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The ACS has a sweetheart deal negotiated with a clueless former government. Any computer professional coming to Oz needs to pay the ACS $$$ to write them a letter saying "The applicant is a programmer who can get work here." The ACS has a monopoly on this. No other organization is allowed to write these letters. And on migrating the applicant has to become a member of the ACS.
I know one programmer who migrated under this scheme. Second year he kept his ACS membership fee and instead he and his family rented a beach house for a week with the money. Much better value was his conclusion.
Once the government gains the power to grant a license, it has the power to take away the license. Then, people start censoring themselves. (if I say the wrong thing on the internet, they'll take away my license.) I have to give my SSN every year just to get a license to fish, and the little machine checks into a state database before it will print out the license. It sure leaves no doubt as to who is the serf and who is the landed gentry in this relationship. Similar things would happen with an internet license, but worse.
Bah, STDs aren't bad. Kids you don't want are far worse.
I'm an inhuman monster who things we should sterilize everyone at 12. If they want kids some time later, have them pass a simple parenting test, and the process is reversed.
Having spent a lot of time around kids who were the product of "oh shit, I'm pregnant", it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Parents who are willing to jump through hoops to have a kid are far more likely to raise a good one than those who didn't want one, but had one anyway.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Dr Smith also said that Australia's banks were "being kind" when they bore the costs of cyber crime.
No, they are simply taking advantage of their customers. Banks should be considered criminally negligent when their customers are victims of identify theft, since the technology to protect their customers exists and is not all that expensive, and the banks and their staff should be punished accordingly.
Does Australia not license criminologists? Failure to do so can result in all manner of self-promoting twits making claims about themselves in order to get listened to long when they rant. In the US this is often seen when private investigators can't make enough money at their primary occupation (installing home and car security systems) and start charging people to listen to them hold forth on anything they think they've wrapped their head around. What makes me draw that parallel is the fact that I see nothing on the AIC web site that says they have a "principal criminologist". Also, keep in mind we do license PIs, but that doesn't stop them from acting a fool in other areas, which seems to be the case here.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"education was secondary to better technology solutions" - was it a hearing or a sales pitch ? I think this quote say it all "The best AV product resides in the cerebral cortex", so start teaching some common sense in school or even better at home. Like you help your kids with homework, I think it is n execellent idea to help them surf safely. I don't care how much parental control sw you install, that is not going to teach anyone common sense or safe surfing.
-
Murhpys law ? What an optimist
These so-called experts are years behind what we know in the field.
Yes, user education matters. A little.
For example, years ago when "Phishing" was the big buzzword of the day, research revealed that computer "dummies" were pretty bad at distinguishing those phishing mails that came through the filters from genuine stuff. But security experts didn't score much better.
We could certainly wish for a beginner's course to teach people some Netiquette, and tell them that it's a big, bad world out there and stop crying if not everyone works the way you want it, and that that's not because of the technology but because there's a lot of humans sitting on the other side.
But from a security POV, it hardly matters. Give the bucks to lawyers so they can write up some software quality requirement laws and software product liability laws. You'll do ten times as much good.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org