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."

Comments

WTF?

[NotQuiteReal]

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?

Re:WTF?

[FooAtWFU]

When all you see at your job all day long is a bunch of nails, you start looking for a big old hammer.

Re:WTF?

[TheRaven64]

Well, at least now we have the explanation for your painfully parochial world view.

Classic example

[G33kGuy]

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.

Re:Classic example

[txoof]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

It is rather idiotic to relate using a computer to using operating a vehicle. A two ton piece of steel flying down the highway at 120k/h is vastly more of a public safety threat than any shmo using a laptop. Not only does this proposition fail to consider the nightmare of registering private individuals, but it does not take into consideration the corporate nightmare it would cause. Who would need the license, the individual operating the computer, or the owner of the computer? Would this mean that internet cafes (and the small anonymity they provide) be doomed because everyone would be forced to provide some sort of identifier token? What about libraries? This sort of identification requirement would force libraries and their entire mission of providing freely accessible information in jeopardy.

This looks like either a poorly thought out plan to help regulate stupidity or a power grab. As evidenced by warning labels on coffee cups, plastic bags and every other mass-produced item, trying to protect people from their own stupidity is nearly impossible. On the other hand, this would be a huge boon for those that wish to dissolve freedom and anonymity on the internet. Granted the average person leaves flashing neon signs with most of their personal data flashing in 1km high letters when they browse, there are still a large number of people that take online anonymity seriously and use it to their advantage for all sorts of reasons the most important being political dissidents.

A simpler solution would be to set up a Great-Firewall much like China's. Even though the GFW has proven to be less than great, it provides basically the same mechanism for keeping people out of the reach of "dangerous ideas".

Let's focus on educating people as to their rights and responsible behavior rather than trying to remove their liberties. We should also probably focus some of that energy on making the intertubes more robust and less prone to point failures and exploits; making the network more robust and idiot proof would benefit the entire world and help make dangerous and promiscuous users a danger to them selves rather than the entire world.

Old Joke

[meerling]

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?

something that should be learned in school

[pwizard2]

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.

Re:Like a driver's license

[Un pobre guey]

None of those things are true, nor are senior citizens the only dipshits out there.

This is moronic legislation put forth by corrupt, ignorant, and incompetent politicians. It would serve no useful purpose, not even helping people avoid fraud. It is stupidity, pure and simple.

Sheesh...

Re:Nonsense

[dave562]

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.

Re:Basic safety steps - Saving AU $500k in dev cos

[Un pobre guey]

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.

Please don't tempt them

[srjh]

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.

Licenses that are given can be taken away

[scifiber_phil]

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.

Re:Shhh ...

[apoc.famine]

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.