Firstly, no one in here even remotely grasps what the legal definition of monopoly is. Hint - its not one sentence, and it is open to judicial interpretation.
Some of the points of this definition are barriers to entry, predatory pricing, and product tying. Verisign does none of these.
Added to which, they implement an open standard for certificates that you are free to implement yourself and compete with them. Hence there is no reasonable barrier to entry - in fact - most of the hard work has been done for you by the standards authors. If Thawte did it, so can you.
i suggest, perhaps, that you get a dictionary and stop being so emotional.
I only get emotional when people fail to grasp that being deemed a "monopolist" in a court of law and somehow matching Webster's definition are two entirely different things. Try the law review instead of dictionary.com.
a monopoly is a company which employs such practices as simply buying their competition when their competition is ripe enoughsnip
Blah blah blah blah...this drivel in no way resembles what the courts determine as constituting a monopoly.
All you've told me so far is that a monopolist is any company that acquires their competition.
openSRS which is sponsoring domain registrars which are, in turn, selling domains for as low as $10 per year -- no kidding, they exist
Newsflash - you can get domain names for free through namezero. today.
Exactly. FBI, NSA, CIA, Verisign, Network Solutions, U.S. Postal Service. Which one of these has the most trustworthy reputation?
Verisign, without a doubt. Its not even close.
Name one major security breach due to Verisign negligence. As for the FBI, NSA, CIA and the Post Office - if you really believe you have some sort of voice in how these institutions are run, I'm sure the fine journalists at 60 minutes could show you some fine footage of government corruption exposed.
Once again, digital certificates are based on an open standard.
Whether you trust the firms that audit Verisign is your own issue - unlike the government, they can and have been sued for misrepresentating audit reports when this has been found. You have much greater recourse available to you then trying to take on, say, the CIA, which will most likely disavow any knowlege and send you on your way (and then "keep an eye on you").
At At least as a public organization, we citizens have a right to oversight.
How can I type a belly laugh??
You mean accountability? Like the FBI, CIA, or even less nefarious organizations that simply drown in lobbying dollars and inefficiency?
Your point may be valid, but not on planet earth.
As private companies, all we can do is threaten to switch to a competitor when find that their security is not up to par. Now, how do you find out when their security is not up to par?
Uh, maybe because the certificate system is based on an open standard, or the fact that these businesses are audited often by people who know more about security than you? Read the auditor reports for the skinny.
Your arguments aren't convincing. Power generation and distribution are handled by private companies that are regulated by the feds. Same with phone service. Both of these are far far more crucial than mail service, and there are requirements in place to see that rural areas are serviced. If these services can be privatized, than mail certainly can be privatized.
Yes, the USPS makes a profit - profit a federal agency has no mandate to make. If power generation can be handled by private companies (regulated by the govt), then there is absolutely no reason why mail cannot be handled in the same way.
No they aren't. You're confusing the fact that they are the only major certificate vendor with monopoly status.
There is nothing stopping you from starting your own ceritificate business (there is an open standard for certificates) and competing against Verisign.
the federal laws that make it illegal to, for example, use my mailbox for anything other than U.S. Mail are critical.
To who??? There is no reason why the federal government needs to be running a delivery service in our modern era, where private industry can easily fill this role.
Government should not be in any industry that could be competitively or profitably serviced by private organizations.
You'll note that the government also doesn't generate your power or run the phone network.
You just change the address that a number is redirected to.
Of course, none of this will ever happen. Just let snail mail die off folks, that leopard isn't going to change its spots.
The best change in mail delivery of course would be competition - let Fedex and UPS deliver daily mail (it is illegal for them to do so now), and maybe you would see some changes.
Huh? There is a merger going on that seems to rub you the wrong way (although I'm assuming like most folks here, you're just chiming in with the prevailing group-thought that forms after the first five or six posts), so you want the US government to come in and run a monopoly racket for you.
We do not need Uncle Sam holding a monopoly on net security.
Why the ongoing anti-merger mindset in/. ??? Last time I checked,/. has gone through two mergers this year alone. Actions speak louder than words kids.
As it stands, NSI will soon have to compete directly against AOL once deregulation of registrars is complete. The motivation to bulk up is obvious.
Get used to more consolidation folks - most segments of the web market now have one clear leader (Schwab, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, Verisign) and these companies are going to use their currency to bulk up like crazy. Its a one-time process that happens in any market to weed out the players who really have no long-term growth prospects.
it would be interesting to see how a pseudonymous market economy of information works out.
Then design one - the karma system is as far away from an objective valuation system as you can possible imagine. The crux of moderation presumes literate masses, yet it is often the most insightful commentary that opposes the popular will of the masses.
Under your system, we end up placing the highest value on the equivalent of pro wrestling.
Congrats. You just wrote three paragraphs and didn't address one factual point I made.
I count at least two non-sequiters, and perhaps three ad hominem attacks. You're on a roll.
Now, back to the point - karma rankings on free speech turns public opinion into a popularity contest in which only the most banal, conformist and vapid speech has any hope of surviving.
Disprove this if you can, but lay off the personal attacks - it shows how weak your argument is.
"net" was traditionally intended for use by network service providers. Your useage is no less an abuse than "slashdot.org", another ridiculous misuse of the namespace.
Almost every conceivable useable combination of characters has been reserved by someone using it, misusing it, or squatting on it.
Its been like this for a while and there isn't any going back. The best you can hope for is industry wide rules banning overt squatting (i.e., taking a domain name and then not applying it to a site for a year), or a rash of new TLDs to free up demand.
I'm personally looking for new TLDs - any type of squatting rule is likely to choke cyberspace in ridiculous lawsuits.
This is a really funny use of the word "responsibility", since it seems to actually mean "vulnerability": ensuring that people are vulnerable to assault whenever they speak.
Balderdash, unless you are threatening someone, in which case you should feel vulnerable. You're using the same witch-hunt argument that has essentially killed individual responsibility in our era.
I think that the answer lies in the unhindered creation of pseudonymous identities, coupled with powerful reputation systems for all identities.
Great! Turn free speech into a popularity contest. Instead of challenging ideas (that sometimes upset you, and are often unpopular), you'll have the repressive din of the karma whores tossing around their meaningless, banal group-thought (and getting laurels for it in the form of even higher popularity points).
Slashdot karma is useful for one thing - keeping out most of the ACs posting Natalie Portman blah blah blah. It sucks for people who, say, happen to (a) hate linux, (b) like windows, (c) etc. Their opinions are sent down in flames by the tyranny of the masses and their collective idiocy.
What these rules would do is create an "economy" of karma/moderation points
Which can be bought and sold, which is also referred to as "manufacturing consent" by Chomsky.
But what about cases that don't make it to the courts for some reason or another. Maybe the DA is still building a case, and one informant isn't enough, what happens to the informant then without anonymity.
Okay, now consider the not-uncommon situation in which you have been accused of something like libel or sexual harassment but your accusor refuses to show up to court. Do you think you're getting a fair trial? Wouldn't you like to be able to have your lawyer be able to seek the validity of the claims through a cross examination??
There are reasons this type of "anonymity" is almost never accepted in court - the witness protection program does a little to compensate for the dangers of testimony.
If someone wants to try to ruin my life for fun and profit, you're damn straight they're going to show their face. Fortunately, the courts agree with me on this one.
First, my offtopic rant: how many psychology majors did you know at your school, if you have attended college? I can tell you that at my school, some exceptions aside, the psych majors were the craziest bunch there.
Meaningless anecdotal evidence. Usenet's psycho factor will trump anything you have experienced any day of the week.
You, like everyone else, seems to be confusing my original post. I am favor of deep and rigid privacy, which we currently do not have in this country. What I would like is behind these veils of privacy, how many there are, is that people claim to be no one but themselves.
You have the right to face your accusers and see the evidence against you. How does this preclude anonymity? If I give the DA documents that prove you embezzeled funds from your company, I can do so anonymously. You'll still face the DA in court, and be able to see the evidence and offer evidence of your own. You just might not know that I'm the person who provided it.
Given the tenor of this debate so far, readers might be lead to believe that the criminal court system works largely by snitches hiding behind DAs. This is false. Such cases are often thrown out, as the defending lawyer has no ability to cross-examine the accusing party. Fortunately, DAs understand this and typically force accusors to take the stand lest their case be tossed.
you make a good point, but there are many instances in the courts (sexual harrasment, libel) where cross-examination is essential and plaintiffs simply must show up in court.
I would also counter that anonymity in court is not the norm. Numerous mob informants have testified in court even though their lives certainly were in peril (see "Sammy the Bull").
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the points of this definition are barriers to entry, predatory pricing, and product tying. Verisign does none of these.
Added to which, they implement an open standard for certificates that you are free to implement yourself and compete with them. Hence there is no reasonable barrier to entry - in fact - most of the hard work has been done for you by the standards authors. If Thawte did it, so can you.
I only get emotional when people fail to grasp that being deemed a "monopolist" in a court of law and somehow matching Webster's definition are two entirely different things. Try the law review instead of dictionary.com.
a monopoly is a company which employs such practices as simply buying their competition when their competition is ripe enough snip
Blah blah blah blah...this drivel in no way resembles what the courts determine as constituting a monopoly.
All you've told me so far is that a monopolist is any company that acquires their competition.
openSRS which is sponsoring domain registrars which are, in turn, selling domains for as low as $10 per year -- no kidding, they exist
Newsflash - you can get domain names for free through namezero. today.
As well as product tying and predatory pricing, none of which exist here. Even reading newsclippings on the MS case would have told you this much.
Verisign is not a monopoly.
I can start up a competing certificate facility anytime I like.
Verisign, without a doubt. Its not even close.
Name one major security breach due to Verisign negligence. As for the FBI, NSA, CIA and the Post Office - if you really believe you have some sort of voice in how these institutions are run, I'm sure the fine journalists at 60 minutes could show you some fine footage of government corruption exposed.
Once again, digital certificates are based on an open standard.
Whether you trust the firms that audit Verisign is your own issue - unlike the government, they can and have been sued for misrepresentating audit reports when this has been found. You have much greater recourse available to you then trying to take on, say, the CIA, which will most likely disavow any knowlege and send you on your way (and then "keep an eye on you").
How can I type a belly laugh??
You mean accountability? Like the FBI, CIA, or even less nefarious organizations that simply drown in lobbying dollars and inefficiency?
Your point may be valid, but not on planet earth.
As private companies, all we can do is threaten to switch to a competitor when find that their security is not up to par. Now, how do you find out when their security is not up to par?
Uh, maybe because the certificate system is based on an open standard, or the fact that these businesses are audited often by people who know more about security than you? Read the auditor reports for the skinny.
Then by the same token Honda and Mazda are monopolists because they have an existing dealer and service network, and newcomers don't.
Sorry, being first doesn't make someone a monopolist.
Your arguments aren't convincing. Power generation and distribution are handled by private companies that are regulated by the feds. Same with phone service. Both of these are far far more crucial than mail service, and there are requirements in place to see that rural areas are serviced. If these services can be privatized, than mail certainly can be privatized.
The fact that no one has done this is not an issue of Verisign being a monopolist.
They have not engaged in product tying or predatory pricing.
No they aren't. You're confusing the fact that they are the only major certificate vendor with monopoly status.
There is nothing stopping you from starting your own ceritificate business (there is an open standard for certificates) and competing against Verisign.
To who??? There is no reason why the federal government needs to be running a delivery service in our modern era, where private industry can easily fill this role.
Government should not be in any industry that could be competitively or profitably serviced by private organizations.
You'll note that the government also doesn't generate your power or run the phone network.
The UPSP must go.
Of course, none of this will ever happen. Just let snail mail die off folks, that leopard isn't going to change its spots.
The best change in mail delivery of course would be competition - let Fedex and UPS deliver daily mail (it is illegal for them to do so now), and maybe you would see some changes.
We do not need Uncle Sam holding a monopoly on net security.
As it stands, NSI will soon have to compete directly against AOL once deregulation of registrars is complete. The motivation to bulk up is obvious.
Get used to more consolidation folks - most segments of the web market now have one clear leader (Schwab, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, Verisign) and these companies are going to use their currency to bulk up like crazy. Its a one-time process that happens in any market to weed out the players who really have no long-term growth prospects.
Change happens folks.
Then design one - the karma system is as far away from an objective valuation system as you can possible imagine. The crux of moderation presumes literate masses, yet it is often the most insightful commentary that opposes the popular will of the masses.
Under your system, we end up placing the highest value on the equivalent of pro wrestling.
POPULARITY DOES NOT EQUATE QUALITY
I count at least two non-sequiters, and perhaps three ad hominem attacks. You're on a roll.
Now, back to the point - karma rankings on free speech turns public opinion into a popularity contest in which only the most banal, conformist and vapid speech has any hope of surviving.
Disprove this if you can, but lay off the personal attacks - it shows how weak your argument is.
Not that it really matters now. You could call this site clownpenis.fart and people would still come in droves.
"net" was traditionally intended for use by network service providers. Your useage is no less an abuse than "slashdot.org", another ridiculous misuse of the namespace.
Its been like this for a while and there isn't any going back. The best you can hope for is industry wide rules banning overt squatting (i.e., taking a domain name and then not applying it to a site for a year), or a rash of new TLDs to free up demand.
I'm personally looking for new TLDs - any type of squatting rule is likely to choke cyberspace in ridiculous lawsuits.
Balderdash, unless you are threatening someone, in which case you should feel vulnerable. You're using the same witch-hunt argument that has essentially killed individual responsibility in our era.
I think that the answer lies in the unhindered creation of pseudonymous identities, coupled with powerful reputation systems for all identities.
Great! Turn free speech into a popularity contest. Instead of challenging ideas (that sometimes upset you, and are often unpopular), you'll have the repressive din of the karma whores tossing around their meaningless, banal group-thought (and getting laurels for it in the form of even higher popularity points).
Slashdot karma is useful for one thing - keeping out most of the ACs posting Natalie Portman blah blah blah. It sucks for people who, say, happen to (a) hate linux, (b) like windows, (c) etc. Their opinions are sent down in flames by the tyranny of the masses and their collective idiocy.
What these rules would do is create an "economy" of karma/moderation points
Which can be bought and sold, which is also referred to as "manufacturing consent" by Chomsky.
Yawn. Now people who violate the group-thought mentality of /. are posting flamebait. Come on, you can do better.
Okay, now consider the not-uncommon situation in which you have been accused of something like libel or sexual harassment but your accusor refuses to show up to court. Do you think you're getting a fair trial? Wouldn't you like to be able to have your lawyer be able to seek the validity of the claims through a cross examination??
There are reasons this type of "anonymity" is almost never accepted in court - the witness protection program does a little to compensate for the dangers of testimony.
If someone wants to try to ruin my life for fun and profit, you're damn straight they're going to show their face. Fortunately, the courts agree with me on this one.
Meaningless anecdotal evidence. Usenet's psycho factor will trump anything you have experienced any day of the week.
You, like everyone else, seems to be confusing my original post. I am favor of deep and rigid privacy, which we currently do not have in this country. What I would like is behind these veils of privacy, how many there are, is that people claim to be no one but themselves.
Given the tenor of this debate so far, readers might be lead to believe that the criminal court system works largely by snitches hiding behind DAs. This is false. Such cases are often thrown out, as the defending lawyer has no ability to cross-examine the accusing party. Fortunately, DAs understand this and typically force accusors to take the stand lest their case be tossed.
I would also counter that anonymity in court is not the norm. Numerous mob informants have testified in court even though their lives certainly were in peril (see "Sammy the Bull").