Slashdot Mirror
Craig Mundie Wants "Internet Driver's Licenses"
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying, 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.' Of course, there are quite a few problems with this. For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can; and this would get rid of most of the good of internet anonymity while retaining all of the bad parts, especially in terms of expanding the market for stolen identities. Even though telephone networks have long been used by scammers and spammers/telemarketers, we've never needed a 'Telephone Driver's License.'"
First links that link to blogs that link to articles. Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.
Where does the stupidity end?
since when do laws stop the bad guys?
The road to ruin was paved with good intentions. However, that includes ludicrous ideas.
WTF a licence to use the Interwebs, that is bullshit and it will never happen. that is like saying you must have a licence to use a phone, or write a letter. how retarded is this guy any why is it news worthy?
Oh, wait...
Craig Mundie is making Dick Brass' point about Microsoft losing its competent people.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Of course, it would be completely coincidental that Microsoft would offer training, software and certification to help get your Internet driver's license, right?
Add the first requirement of not using IE, and then we might entertain the thought, and start some serious discussion.
It was supposed to be a tale of warning about the pitfalls of technology and big government, not a roadmap for where we should be heading. I swear there's a certain class of people that don't understand that concept or maybe they do and they just really hope they get to be the masters pet.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
In other words, Windows doesn't suck - The users do.
The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You should have to have a license to operate Windows. Any other OS you don't need one. Licensing should be issued by the nearest LUG for a small fee.
What the hell is this bonehead talking about? They have a 90% market share. Just make up a required course that people must take to buy your software and be done with it. Or make it so that IE doesn't work unless you have used a smart card that reads your license.
Seems like there are a lot of more important ones that should get priority.
The article linked in the article posted here provides some context. He seemed to have been talking about this as a way of preventing cyber attacks, you'd have your license revoked if your computer was compromised and could be used in an attack. MS seems to have been trying to cover their asses: "It's not our fault, if we would just put this intrusive system in place, which has no chance of working, but more importantly would never be funded and never built, then the problem will be solved." The next time a problem with MS products creates a serious problem, they'll say "We told you so! If you had just put up a billion dollars to make the drivers license system, it might not have completely failed, and this could have been avoided! Your fault!"
Heil gruppenfuerer Mundiestetter!
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Instead of a license for users, there should be a license to write an OS.
Nobody at Microsoft would qualify, judging by the POSes they have released since the 1980s.
Excuse me, why is anyone listening to what MS has to say about Internet security, again?
This is so Microsoft. Their response to any problem is to want more control. (A bit like most governments, actually)
Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.
They are absolutely committed to the cathedral, with no thought of the bazaar.
And, for a while, it works.
"Cats like plain crisps"
This sounds like a marketing person annoyed that nearly everyone who is forced to fill out their stupid forms to get some needed content is telling Microsoft that they are 98 year old Afghan woman with an income over $100,000. I love power-tripping types like this: Lifeguards who seem to think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks out of the water. Police who think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks off their girlfriends. TSA people who think they are there to do anything but smell my feet. Politicians who think that elected office doesn't mean that they are really just failed real-estate people. Hall monitors who think they are popular. Waiters who think they have earned a tip by interrupting my conversation to see if everything is all right. Oh and failed programmers who think that by dragging their "Team" into meetings is the road to a great product. But I digress. Would an internet driver's license make the internet a better place? And more importantly who would collect the money for the licensing? That sounds like a monopoly that they could milk for decades longer than their slowly dying OS / Text editor business.
or perhaps Wikipedia.
If you read /. often, you'd know Wikipedia is far less free than it used to be. We even have some trolls who post complaints about Wikipedia editors here. They are people who have gotten fed up with the current "I will control whatever happens on my pages" territorial mindset of some of the editors there who have all day to police their "domains".
This sort of thing drives away and discourages many people from contributing.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
And taking a joke too far will carry the death penalty!
Because, if we sat idlely by, unnewsworthy retards would sign any old thing into law. A law that we would have to obey.
Such bullshit will only 'never happen' so long as there are intelligent people sufficiently informed and mobilised to oppose it.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief "Research" and "Strategy" Officer really ought to try getting his own R&D shop under control.
Maybe he should be back in Redmond trying to fix his company's joke of an R&D process (ZUNE!!!) rather than pontificate at Davos to VIPs who actually might mistake him for somebody with a clue about technology.
Tech Public Policy stuff
There's no way Windows would pass any kind of Internet-readiness test, it gets viruses and lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems. So it is weird to hear this guy say our Internet "cars" need certification.
Do you think you need to take a test to use an iPad? The reason so many XP are out there is the massive user training to go to a newer Windows nets no productivity benefit, yet people trade in their old phones for iPhone and without any training the Web browser and a couple of key apps make them immediately more productive.
Apple is working hard so computing is easy, the Unix community is working hard so computing is safe, and Microsoft says you need to take a test and get a license.
Which is all well and good until the philosopher kings who wisely and benignly watch over the accreditation process are replaced by assinine bureaucrats in the pocket of lobby groups and special interests.
Suddenly P2P programs can't get accredited anywhere, regardless of their legitimate use because they 'don't meet standards' or other such vague explanation, and exorbitant fees are charged for processing applications that cut the smaller players out of the market.
I would oppose any measure that seeks to control access to the internet. I'll gladly tolerate spam and phishers if it means I can do what I goddamned well please with the internet I pay for.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I cannot count the number of times I have seen variations of this kind of idea here in the Comments section of Slashdot. It's funny how the same idea stated by MS is quite suddenly reprehensible...
Something tells me that if there was a license required for internet use the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...
Look on the bright side - if Microsoft say using the internet should be licienced like driving a car, then we could sue them like we can sue a defective car manufacturer.
I think it would be even better if we mandate a security licence for designing, implementing and deploying operating systems/web browsers/etc that access the network.
For example, if you tried that for a couple of decades and could not get it right, then maybe your licence should be revoked and reinstated only after proving you code correct and only in a limited market first. (For example, desktops only, no laptops, no wireless etc.)
I really hope this will get traction!
They won't get away with Windows-only, but they could require that you get your OS from a certified vendor. For the Linux crowd that means Red Hat Enterprise Linux ($$$) and friends.
They could require some sort of DRM, perhaps with crypto signing that covers everything from the boot loader (checked by BIOS) down to the apps (only signed apps can make network connections).
Does he mean to imply that driving licenses have kept morons off the roads? I'm not so sure it is working around here...
I had very similar thoughts...that, and the fact that the RIAA/MPAA would just *LOVE* a system that matches identities with IP addresses and could derivatively add "unlicensed data transmission", "allowing an unlicensed minor to go online", "unreasonable network congestion", and any number of other crimes to file sharing. Oh...and bucks to beans that they would add questions like "downloading music and movies is: A.) a good idea, but only if you pay for it B.) a guaranteed way to get viruses, C.)piracy (except in the case of A), D.) All of the above" to the test.
But he's saying it's the internet that needs a license, not computers. So having computers that just did online things would not solve his perceived problem, but worsen it. To solve his problem, you'd need computers that refuse to connect to the web unless you had a license.
Basically, I think his comments reflect Microsoft's lingering fear of the internet - because Microsoft controls the desktop, and the web is a threat to that control.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.
Have you BEEN to wikipedia lately?
The moderators there LOVE control.