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.'"
will they take away your license?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Now I can tell someone they fail at the internet!
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?
that MS is just inviting crazy homeless people to come in and run their operations.
since when do laws stop the bad guys?
The road to ruin was paved with good intentions. However, that includes ludicrous ideas.
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?
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.
Although Google, et al can chip away at our privacy this would completely stifle free speech and dissent.
I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse, but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists?
-Not that I supported prop 8, but I do mod ACs up if they have something useful/interesting to say.
On the other hand, I don't disagree that there should perhaps be some required qualifications for hosting/administering websites, dealing with credit card transactions, userdbs, etc, but that is very different than (what I think) is being proposed.
I'm just sayin'
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...
Bruce Schneier had a pretty good takedown of this kind of argument just the other day.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
So this is like a ham license for landlines which sort of *act* like public airwaves. It's actually not SUCH a bad idea -- it sure keeps the S/N ratio up in the ham bands. Even if the test is virtually unfailable, the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get. It'll never happen though!
1. It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use. The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech, and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking.
2. Even if done privately, requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a bad idea.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
On a thread that so richly deserves it. Here. Without undue prejudice:
HITLER!
HITLER!
HITLER!
HITLER!
HITLER!
HITLER!
HITLER!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Seems like there are a lot of more important ones that should get priority.
As much as I like to joke that some people need licenses to operate a computer or use the Internet, this would be a bad thing. We'd all end up with license numbers and sites would start to require us to register with those numbers if we wanted to use those services. For many Internet-based services in Korea, you must enter a citizen ID.
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!"
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/
I'm NO fan of Microsoft (which I hold responsible for a lot of the malware problems on the 'Net), nor am I a big fan of PKI (I think the implementations are way to fragile), but I think there might be a worthy idea in here.
Drivers Licenses have two uses:
1. Certification of driving skills
2. A nationally recognized identity
Consider this for use #2...
So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc? This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.
Yes, there -are- civil liberty implications. But we always have the tension between known identity and guaranteed privacy.
So as a form of tougher ID on the Internet, I think this deserves to be taken seriously, and the plusses and minuses (as established here...) should be debated.
I just had a packet collision!
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
Those are only the few questions I could come up with in ten minutes time. There are certainly many more beyond these. I would like to hear Mr. Mundie's answers to these questions along with the complete plan for putting this into place. I'll wait.
It's a very dark ride.
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
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...
[1] [2]
E pluribus unum
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!
There you go.
Fuck you Criag Mundie. Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit. Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?
What the fuck Criag. Die in a fire.
Don't feed the troll of the article.
He's Just Another Manic Mundie.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine