Kaspersky CEO Wants End To Online Anonymity

Andorin writes "Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs, is calling for an end to the anonymity of the Internet, and for the creation of mandatory 'Internet passports' for anyone who wishes to browse the Web. Says Kaspersky, 'Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport ... the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way.' He calls anonymity 'the Internet's biggest security vulnerability' and thinks any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.' The EFF objects, and it's likely that they won't be the only ones."

Comments

"Papers Please"

[brunes69]

Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.

Re:"Papers Please"

[Smegly]

Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.

Exactly. But then creating a fear based "papers please" society was never about stopping crime or terrorism to begin with, anyway. Thats just a convenient for voters to believe so various profitable charades can continue and profits continue to flow in...

Re:"Papers Please"

[Paleolibertarian]

It isn't FUD at all. History provides ample evidence that whenever government or any quasi-government organization gets to regulate something there is always a political aim in doing so to the detriment of users and usually to the benefit of government or corporations.

When there was a single provider of domain names in the U.S. they were very expensive. When the monopoly was broken domain names are now much cheaper.

If a "passport" is required for internet access you can be sure that the hoops will be set in ways that prevent some people from having access. Even when they intend to do no harm at all. Convicted felons I predict would be the first group to be banned. Followed by children below a certain age. Then they will require that filters be put in place for some types of "passports" etc...

The internet is a very public place for the practice of free speech and dissemination of all sorts of information, both good and bad. It has been said that the antidote for "bad" speech is not regulation but more speech. Only the individual is capable of determining what he gets from the internet is good or bad... for HIM, NOT the government. Governments will always want to regulate communications between individuals. Governments prefer ignorant taxpayers. A passport would provide the means to identify an individual so they could be readily punished or prevented from exercising the right to speak freely. This is ALWAYS a bad thing.

The answer to the wild and woolly internet is for people to get more intelligent which is something the internet does very well in spite of all of the crap that is out there. Any regulation at all is a bad thing.

Kaspersky is at best a fool.

Edwin

If he doesn't like anonymity...

[jcr]

Then he can just start his own network and only let people use it if they identify themselves.

-jcr

Re:If he doesn't like anonymity...

[TheRaven64]

Mod this up. If you think anonymity is a bad thing then create VPN on top of the Internet, with certificates required to connect, and reject any traffic that doesn't come over this VPN. Only make your services available over this VPN, and not over the public portion of the Internet. Come back in a year and tell us what proportion of Internet users are connected to your system; if it's more than 1% I shall be very impressed.

Guess who's security software I won't be buying?

[Junior J. Junior III]

This guy apparently doesn't understand that for many, anonymity is a security feature.

Anonymity is prone to abuse, sure, but it is vital for free exchange of ideas. People who are identifiable are less likely to make risky statements, and this is detrimental to culture. Repression and oppression should not be the goal of Security.

Beyond that, not everything on the internet is a person.

Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying

[Shin-LaC]

Indeed, this could be a serious PR blunder for Kaspersky. His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand "Kaspersky" from "respected maker of Windows antivirus software" to "worse than Microsoft AIDS" (a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being).

Then again, I wasn't really in his potential customer pool to begin with, so it might not matter.

Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying

[TheRaven64]

Absolutely! Nothing important was ever published anonymously before the Internet! Anonymity is a brand new thing that only exists on the Internet and is clearly not important there because it's not important anywhere else.

What else does he believe

[EmperorOfCanada]

If he believes this then what privacy violations will he do to users of his software. I can be certain that his software is now blacklisted from my company network. Who knows what self righteous use he might make of being behind my firewalls?

Follow the money.

[John Hasler]

Such a program would need to be administered, of course, and who's better qualified to do so than "security" companies? A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $5/year with a buck or two in "adminstrative expenses": do we see a financial interest here? Naw. I'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart. No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company.