Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 27

Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Author:

Topic:

Internet Idiocy

Posted:

Jan 02, 2002

Comments:

The Internet. A miracle of the 21st Century, providing high quality information and education to all, breaking down social barriers and creating a new info-democracy the likes of which our fathers could only dream about. Few would disagree that the Internet is a wonder of the modern world, and one of America's greatest contributions to science.

However, as with all emergent technologies sooner or later, abuse by the uneducated masses causes the need for regulation to arise. As more people adopt a technology, the more likely that technology will be used by irresponsible individuals who try to spoil things for the rest of us.

This is why the time has come to introduce licensing for Internet users.

More stories about Internet Idiocy

	Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
	The Online Social World: Internet Dating
	Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
	Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
	Writing Satire For A Technical Audience
	Death Threats on Groups.Google.Com
	Adequacy.Org Presents the Commonsense Crossword
	Google Needs a Winston Smith
	On criminal language and the word `hacker'
	Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
	Keeping the terrorists off the net
	The Internet, Pornography, and Masturbation are destroying college students

More stories by

	America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
	Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
	Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
	Is it time women covered up at work ?
	The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
	Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
	European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
	SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
	Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
	US in recession. What should we do about it ?
	Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
	Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
	How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
	The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
	World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
	You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
	A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
	Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
	The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
	Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
	Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
	Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
	DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
	The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
	Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
	My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
	Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
	Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
	Great Britain must keep the pound.
	Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
	The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
	Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
	America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
	British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
	Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
	Which is the best way to predict the future ?
	God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
	The History of Rap.
	Theater Review: My Fair Lady
	Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
	Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
	A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

What do the activities listed above have in common ?

The answer is that all are potentially dangerous activities for which one must obtain a license if one wishes to remain on the right side of the law.

It is surprising to me that one potentially dangerous activity is conspicuously missing from the above list. We all accept without question the need for regulation where dangerous technologies are concerned (as the list clearly demonstrates). So why should the Internet be exempt ? What is so special about 0s and 1s travelling along a wire that makes us give it 'special treatment' ? Why should this important resource not enjoy the protection from abuse that regulation would undoubtably provide ?

In the old days of the Internet, its usage was confined to academia, and the military. Back in those days, one could be fairly sure that Internet users were responsible citizens, who would not abuse their 'net access, after all our educators and defenders are people we knew we could trust.

These days, with the explosive growth in Internet usage, it is impossible to control who goes online. Indeed, many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) market themselves on how 'easy to use' their service is. You are just as likely to find senior citizens, children, teenagers and housewives online these days, as you are to find a world class physicist or a military intelligence officer.

As you would expect, with such a large number of uneducated people given unrestricted access to such a powerful tool, the results have not always been pleasant, and abuse has run rampant. You can find bomb making instructions, Islamic fundamentalist propaganda, pornography, hate sites, left wing and right wing extremism, pornography, fascism in all its different and elaborate disguises, Radical androphobic feminism, autism, pornography, questionable politics, pornography, blasphemy against Jesus, and yet more pornography.

This is the mere tip of the iceberg, since the Internet is estimated to have as much as 100 Gigabytes of this kind of offensive material, and it is growing larger by the week, as more and more uneducated people rush to 'get online' so that they may 'surf the web' with their equally poorly-educated beer-swilling redneck buddies.

As with all technologies, the Internet has matured to the point where regulation is not just desirable, it has become inevitable. You don't need to be Kreskin to predict that unless the Internet is regulated, and regulated quite heavily, it will soon collapse under the sheer weight of pointless traffic Britney Spears fan sites, uninteresting personal home pages and the extra load placed on the 'net infrastructure by illegal protocols such as Aimster Napster, Bearshare Gnutella and the like.

As with automobiles, firearms, and TV ownership, the only way to ensure the Internet is used responsibly is to introduce a system of licencing and mandatory education for its users. Such a system would ensure that only those with a complete understanding of the Internet and a responsible approach to online activities would be entrusted with access to the 'net. After all, Internet access should be a privilege, not a right.

There may be some opposition to begin with, but I predict that as with other forms of licensing, most people will be happy to give up a small amount of their freedom in order to take advantage of the many benefits promised by more control of the 'net.

I would envisage centers being set up all over the country, where 'newbies' could go and practice surfing in a safe environment, and receive instruction on a curriculum to include basic 'nettiquette' and 'safe surfing' in a non-threatening environment.

After practicing and receiving instruction, a net user would then take their 'Internet test' which would qualify them to surf the net without supervision. Subsequent higher level tests would enable the would-be surfer to improve his or her skills to the point where access to more advanced net-surfing technology would be permitted.

It may be that these centers will need a safe practice Internet of their own, disconnected from the dangers of the real Internet (although this may not be required if tools such as net nanny, surfsafe, cyber guard zone alarm and web-washer offer sufficient protection). Obviously the details of this need to be thrashed out by our elected representatives and legislators.

Since different people have different capacities for learning I propose that we have different categories of Internet license based on several factors:

Class C Internet License
Allows the user to surf the Internet over a dial-up connection, at speeds of up to 56kbps, using an industry standard OS, such as Windows ME or Windows XP. Net Nanny, or Cyber Patrol must be activated at all time during the session. IE6 is the only browser that may be used by holders of this license.
Class B Internet License
Allows the user all the priveleges of the Class C license, plus the license holder is now entitled to surf the Internet over a DSL or Cable Modem connection,(either directly connected or in conjunction with an 802.11b wireless network), and may if he or she chooses, use 'alternative' Operating systems such as BeOS, or MacOS X. Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny may be used at the discretion of the individual surfer. The user may utilize IE6 or at his or her discretion other commercial grade browsers such as Opera or Netscape.
Class A Internet License
Allows the user all the priveleges of the Class B license, plus the license holder is now entitled to surf the Internet over a T1 or OC3 connection or faster, and may utilize any Operating system they choose (including net-unfriendly OS's such as BSD Unix and Linux), and may use the browser of his/her choice, including lynx and Mozilla.

Of course there will need to be age restrictions as well. Nobody under the age of 14 or over the age of 75 will qualify for an Internet license. The very young need to develop their personalities, and exposure to the solitary net-surfing experience could severely stunt their mental and social development leading to autism or extremely violent behavior (or at the very least, social ineptitude, whilst the very old would be at risk of heart seizures and other complications caused by some of the more extreme content that is to be found on the Internet.

Enforcement of the Internet license may also prove to be problematic. However it needn't be so. A minor reworking of the TCP/IP protocol stack to include a license verification phase as part of the three way handshake, combined with strong encryption and digital signatures, and biometric scanning devices attached to every PC should make it trivial to ensure that the net is free from unlicensed surfers. Combine this with the threat of having your Internet license revoked for misbehaviour and you have a very powerful mechanism to control misuse of the 'net.

In the same way that posession of motor vehicle drivers license does not protect the driver from the occasional fender-bender, likewise the Internet license will not prevent the occasional abuse of the Internet from taking place. In order to provide a means of redress for those affected by a licensed surfer's poor nettiquette, there will need to be a mandatory insurance law. All licensed Internet users will need to take out insurance to cover their liabilities for any abuses they perpetrate online (whether accidental or intentional).

The regulation of the Internet promises to improve the Internet for everyone. By eliminating the irresponsible individuals who spoil the web for the rest of us, we will be able to enjoy an enhanced web surfing experience free from h4x0rs, skR1p7 K1dd135, spammers, misinformation, porn, extreme political lunatics, lame-assed websites and just about every other problem that plagues the Internet today. Your Internet license could become just as important to a future employer as a driver's license or a high school diploma is today! Of course, the Privacy Nazis and Freedom Fascists will trot out that familiar tired old chestnut:- that people who sacrifice their freedoms do not deserve them in the first place, but most of those kind of people are not parents and are unconcerned about protecting our children from the very real dangers of the unregulated Internet.

I hope I have given you surfers some food for thought. If you think I am being a control freak, just try to imagine the state our highways would be in today if anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to drive an automobile, anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to carry a gun and anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to sell liquor to whomesoever they chose.

It's a sobering thought I think you will agree.

	hmmm.. (none / 0) (#3)
	by derek3000 on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:38:38 PM PST

	seems that my original comment was too controversial for my fellow adequacy readers. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	nice try, pal (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by dirty monkey man on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:46:37 PM PST

	Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted. This is your fair warning. you were warned before you posted. why cry now? but let me just say that i hope in the future (as you mature) you learn how to enjoy the fruits of healthy debate instead of just trying to be a 'wiseguy' all the time. furthermore, in your previous post you made some comments on laws that are for your own good. let me be the first to strongly suggest you take a boat to africa or someplace and leave civilization to those who value it.

	Thanks dirty monkey man (none / 0) (#8)
	by dmg on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:07:42 PM PST

	I could not have put it better myself. Us adequacy editors take our jobs very seriously, and comments like derek3000's are precisely the kind of 'trolling' that we will not tolerate. It is good to see that at least some people understand what adequacy is all about. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	and how do you explain this? (none / 0) (#24)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:23:20 PM PST

	Yes, but I had a rebuttal to his troll. And why did you censor mee too? I guess he was just too adequate.... liberal hypocrite I hope you get a job and see what the real world is like. --philipm

	The pitfalls of open source (none / 0) (#29)
	by iat on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:50:02 PM PST

	Yes, but I had a rebuttal to his troll. And why did you censor mee too? When the troll comment was "editorialised" and hidden from normal users' view, your comment was also hidden. Unfortunately, "editorialisation" is one of the few remaining open source parts of our proprietary weblog engine and so is prone to this sort of unfortunate bug. If you really like, I'll unhide your comment, but without the parent comment (the troll) it will look like you're talking to yourself. Are you sure you really want that? Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	no (none / 0) (#30)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:56:27 PM PST

	you are right as always. I humbly apologize. Its just that those liberal linux zealots make me so mad. Grrrrrrrrr. --philipm

	Dismay (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:56:57 PM PST

	Police yourself before you try and police other people.

	This would certainly stop the pedofiles (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:07:09 PM PST

	It seems like every week I read about a young girl or boy being preyed upon by some pedofile who used the internet to get them. I'm a strong believer in technology and freedom, but to me this crosses the line - once your sons and daughters are in danger, action must be taken. The way I see it, we either have to keep these perverts off the internet, or we need a way to identify them, something like a little flag or a special bell that goes off when they come into a chatroom so everyone can be careful and watch out for each other. I know it seems extreme and maybe even un-American, but sometimes freedom is a luxury that must be restricted to combat evil. Just my two cents' worth, god bless.

	A middle ground at last... (none / 0) (#176)
	by budlite on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:07:03 PM PST

	I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I'll refrain from commenting on the practical problems involved with what you propose. I like the idea of the internet as a free information exchange, and the idea of licensing and total centralised control of what one can and can't view is abhorrent to me. However, I do agree that a small amount of regulation is in order. I'm happy with the state of the internet as it is now, bar the presence of child pornography and script kiddies with maladjusted mentalities. Those are the few things that I believe should be regulated and targeted by the regulating authorities. I stand up for freedom of speech and if someone wants to post their extreme political views, then let them. Whether or not they are posted on the internet that person and probably others will still hold their views and find some other means of "spreading the word". This idea of strict licensing and ridiculously strict content control is definitely going way too far, but some small amount of regulation IS a good idea.

	No it wouldn't (none / 0) (#213)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:38:54 PM PST

	First of all, 80% of all paedophiles are either family members or friends. Their contact with children has nothing to do with the Internet or computers. Secondly, one computer can do the work of 100,000 FBI agents or Police Officers. You may think that you are anonymous sitting behind your computer monitor but your not. Neither are the perverts that pray on children. Law enforcement agencies have learnt to harness the power of the Internet to catch these sickos, banning them is probably one of the worst things you could possibly do.

	Not exactly possible. (none / 0) (#9)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:18:50 PM PST

	Especially the browser/OS thing. Other things too. There are hundreeds of ways how, when you are knowledgeable enough, you can make a machine posing as another kind of machine. Ie, browsers are identified by "User-agent:" HTTP request header line. There are few things simpler than to fake this line: one possibility is to hack the file the line is defined in and edit it to anything other. Another possibility, which I am routinely using, is a proxyserver that intercepts and edits the request/response headers. So I can set any browser to appear as any other browser, with resolution up to single URL (in techspeak, with resolution to a regexp match against the requested URL). Faking operating system IP fingerprinting (ie, the kind nmap uses) is more difficult. However, it's still possible: you can either edit the kernel sources and make it respond in certain way to the probes, or you can intercept the data by other computer between the computer and the modem. (All you need is a machine with two serial ports and fast-enough (I bet a 486/100 is enough) CPU. Then you can intercept/edit packets going from/to the modem in real time. I had similar setup here, though for monitoring only, that was watching both the Rx and Tx lines to the modem and displaying data dumps in real time on second monitor. Similar thing you can do with Ethernet (cable modems, etc.) with a machine and a pair of network cards, set up as Ethernet bridge. If you have the cards that have software-configurable MAC address, nobody can figure out any change from the outside. Some security monitoring systems even work this way: they act transparent, logging all the packets in a circular buffer, and in case of problems the log is reviewed.) Software developer licences. When I checked last, the compiler hadn't needed to know more than the locations of header files and libraries. Both Visual C++ (ewww) and gcc. Which is the only good way. Car driving licences. When I checked last (repairing ignition for a friend), the car started even when I hadn't had one. I don't possess it, and I don't have the skills to drive a car (because I don't have the need to), but the car itself doesn't care. Transceiver licences. Same thing. I once operated a transceiver for an afternoon, when a friend needed to assist with something, for exchange for teaching me how it works. If I will need, I can get a transceiver unit and operate it. No licence? No problem. Just don't make waves, don't piss off fellow channel ops, and be mostly quiet, and you will not get caught. Regarding TVs, the UK phone detection vans are more of a myth than of a real thing. The modus operandi of the "TV goons" is to compare registration lists against household lists and harass the people who don't have The Paper (or, as we like to say here, "bumazhka" (from Russian, evoking the control-it-all practices of our Soviet Brother)). Even if they would really have the detectors, it is easy to foil them: don't use regular TV, but put a TV card to the computer. The detectors "see" the electromagnetic noise emitted by horizontal deflection coils, and are tuned to 15.625 kHz. By using a scan convertor, in this case TV card, the computer-TV setup operates on frequency of the monitor, and TV detector doesn't see it. (It is also possible the detectors listen on the frequency of superheterodyne oscillator of the receiver, but it is improbable; the signal is much weaker and unsuitable for reception by a sane-cost device. The function of TV detectors is more psychological than technical.) About detection of unlicenced equipment connected to the public network: I operate a smaller drove of do-it-myself devices connected to phone lines (a call recorder (constructionally equivalent to a "bug" but not so stealthy), a line voltage detector (telco had some problems and they weren't too willing to take care about it (damn monopoly) and a voltmeter helped me to see when the line is ok)...). Which is theoretically expressly forbidden. However, because I acquired the specs of the phone devices and of the phone switchboards line requirements, from the outside the whole system is still well within technical parameters of "legal" line, and the chances to find about the "violations" by mere electrical measurement are de facto zero. Proved by years. (Equipment law #1: You can violate any rules as long as you don't cause any problems.) Regarding privacy and freedom: To ensure there will be no anonymity/pseudonymity, you would have to cut off all access to the outside world, or force all the world to conform to the same rules. Even then, you would have to monitor each and every transaction - which can be easily cheated using protocol-level tunneling. How can you find that that SSL-encrypted transaction that behaves like a videotelephone call is really a videophone call and not a data transmission, "smuggling" source codes across the borders? Even if you would intercept an unencrypted transmission, how would you ensure that there aren't steganography-encoded informations in the video stream? Remember - even if you'd have certified tamperproof machine, using the serial or Ethernet proxy-bridges described above you can manipulate the data streams going in and out of it. Fake licences. They are as old as the idea of licencing. As they will be validated by a machine, it should not be much of problem to cheat the machine. Machines are stupid. Digital signatures. This will breed a whole market with fake signatures. Check the market with longdistance calling codes to see what I talk about in principle. Same with creditcard numbers. Wireless networks. If the current sorry state of wireless network security will continue together with their proliferation, it will not be problem to just take a laptop, a wireless PCMCIA card, and a car, and cruise through the city until a "holey" network is found. Then just connect in, do what you want to do online, and leave. Censorware. There are whole organizations that work on ways to cheat the censorware like Net Nanny. This layer is not too hard to defeat, especially when you have full physical access to the machine. If checked from the outside, it should be no problem to either keep outside marks of running censorware, or simulate malfunction. Even if fully operational, running a server or having a friend who runs a server with a toy like CGIproxy under HTTPS is a proven way how to get through. My friends in less fortunate states (China, UAE, Saudi Arabia) are using one I set up for them, with full success. Friends. In smaller country or a dislocated town, everyone knows everyone. A lot of "extra-legal relations" is then possible. When you have a trust-based network, much more kinds of services are possible. (Refering back to the driving licence: if your local cop knows you and knows you drive safely and well, he will not necessarily care about that you don't have the "bumazhka". You then usually do some sort of similar service for him as well. Black market. If too restrictive rules appear, tools for skirting them appear as well. Naturally, people then create two groups: the ones who have and the ones who need. A market will emerge, in compliance with the thousands-years-old rules. In short, your idea is impossible to implement in a leakproof way. Without turning the whole world into a police state. Even then, there will be ways around. It will pose great inconvenience for all the public, and will only give them false sense of security, making the life of Black Hats in sum easier (slightly more difficult Net access, but much less secure networks because of absence of any overt danger). So the idea is also counterproductive in its very effects.

	Dear Mr. Tolstoy: (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:23:15 PM PST

	I shudder to think how much of the information super highway's transmission resources would be wasted if you made the effort to connect enough of the dots in your speaking (gibberish) points to remain on-topic. Cranks like you will never get past the interview phase of the class C licensing requirements. If for no other reason, interviewers would have to fail you after the very first question or skip lunch in order to listen to your answer to the second question. And that is the fly in your ointment, the monkeywrench in your machinery, the hacker in your secretarial pool, etc: Without the minimal requirement of a class C license, no authorized IP reseller will connect you to the Internet. Crisis averted, Einstein.

	*yawn* (none / 0) (#18)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:50:21 PM PST

	Cranks like you will never get past the interview phase of the class C licensing requirements. Interview? Boringly easy. Find what they can ask for, find (or buy or guess) what they want to hear, tell them so. Hey - if I can remember unix commands, I can remember test answers too. You never cheated a test or lied in a form? It's so easy it's boring. If for no other reason, interviewers would have to fail you after the very first question or skip lunch in order to listen to your answer to the second question. If you want simple answers, ask the Management. If you want correct and complex answers, ask the Technicians. Without the minimal requirement of a class C license, no authorized IP reseller will connect you to the Internet. Social engineering. If it fails, friends. If it fails, fake licence. If it fails, service theft. There isn't impossibility here - just lack of determination. Crisis averted, Einstein. Sure?

	i see your point (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:03:03 PM PST

	Interview? Boringly easy. Nothing could possibly easy for you except being transparently stupid. I dont think you realize the cognitive dissonance provoked when comparing your words to your inflated sense of fragile grandiosity. Let me make this as simple as possible. For you to ever get as little as a Class C Internet License under the New World Order, you will require a frontal lobotomy to fool the secretary, much less the interviewer in the office behind her desk.

	too easy. (none / 0) (#38)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:23:03 PM PST

	I would go for the: "ive never used computers before. I want to be able to use the email thing" PASS or "I am a registed computer scientist (with the correct papers). And I want to contribute to the internet" PASS now how difficult is that dumbass??? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	i think some introspection is in order (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:50:23 PM PST

	now how difficult is that dumbass??? It's impossible if you're a Lunix user. Lunix users must demonstrate their mastery of useless computer trivia or they simply die where they stand. You've heard of self-esteem? Well Lunix users have this thing called Lunix instead. If I may, I suggest you sit on your hands and browse this site for the evidence.

	not true (none / 0) (#50)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:03:18 PM PST

	I dont give a shit about linux in all honesty. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you'd thinks so (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:54:21 PM PST

	but... Interviewer: Does the name Linux Torvaldez mean anything to you? Hacker in disguise: ITS LINUS TORVALDS YOU IDOT!!!1! DONT U NO ANYTHING???? Interviewer: Next.

	hehe (none / 0) (#51)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:04:48 PM PST

	never heard of social engineering? hackers are good at it. Go read up on some cases. linux will never be illegal as it is a legally made software. The government cant shut down companies that dont break the law. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you have a short, volatile memory. Power loss? (none / 0) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:21:47 PM PST

	never heard of social engineering? hackers are good at it. Go read up on some cases. Au contraire, I've heard all about your heros Kevin Mitnick and Fiber Optik. Have they been released from jail already? Well, just goes to show how much magnanimity humanity is capable of extending towards its inferior, subgenus hacker stepchildren. However, please be advised that tolerance is ultimately just a word, not much more than unmusical sound emanating from red, soft, moist, voluptuous lips. The interpretation of such sounds in the past is not your license to conduct yourself illegally or on the Internet without a Class C Internet User License in the future. Forewarned is forearmed. #!/usr/local/bin/perl print "Oh, yes, Internet Licensing is coming.\n" (Just so you understand.)

	You don't see them all. (none / 0) (#59)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:46:48 PM PST

	Have they been released from jail already? You hear only about the ones who get caught. For each careless (or out of luck) one there is at least a dozen of low-profile ones. That quiet little kid with glasses from your neighbourhood can be quite well a world-class network security ace. To quote a cop from "Cops" (or what was that live-action show made from police cam footages): "I never seen a smart criminal." It is quite possible that it was just because the smart ones are harder to catch.

	you dont understand english (none / 0) (#65)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:24:07 PM PST

	social engineering has sweet fuck hacker all to do with 14 year old world class network security aces even if such a delusion were possible. Do you know why? Because 14 year olds will have a hard time social engineering anyone before the onset of puberty sends their squeaky, childish voices on permanent vacation. It has become abundantly clear that you are not adequate. I suggest you lurk until you learn to focus your attention and read with comprehension. Acquiring human skills is not as easy as learning to hack, but nothing worthwhile is as easy as learning to hack. It's all about adequacy.

	You're partially right. (none / 0) (#76)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:26:51 PM PST

	... Because 14 year olds will have a hard time social engineering anyone before the onset of puberty sends their squeaky, childish voices on permanent vacation. Yes. Until then, they better spend their time studying technology. Acquiring role-playing skills, being it from games of Dungeons & Dragons or from participating in local theatre group, helps as well.

	kidz, dont listen to this provocateur! (none / 0) (#79)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:37:24 PM PST

	Role playing skills acquired playing D&D will serve you well when you're engineering more sedatives out of the orderlies in the lunatic asylum you were sent to after shooting the kids in your classroom with daddy's 22 calibre magic wand for making fun of your lack of social skills.

	Ignore him and pay attention. (none / 0) (#84)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:04:32 PM PST

	Role playing skills acquired playing D&D will serve you well when you're engineering more sedatives out of the orderlies in the lunatic asylum you were sent to after shooting the kids in your classroom with daddy's 22 calibre magic wand for making fun of your lack of social skills. Hey, those little bastards got only what they begged for! But seriously... I hadn't played much. But even then, I learned an important concept: "The character doesn't know what the player knows." In essence, behaving like not knowing something. Not as easy as it sounds, and important when you need to hide or deny knowledge about something. Maybe it will save my life one day.

	Are you a genius? (none / 0) (#86)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:19:37 PM PST

	Cause if you are, there's at least one nobel in my 5 year old niece's future.

	social engineering (none / 0) (#114)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:18:58 AM PST

	go buy some network security books. One of the first things they tell any network administrator is to train their staff against social engineering attacks. Even simple ones such as phone calls... "Hi im Mike (network administrator) im in a rush and Ive forgotten the password for remote login through my laptop. Could you give it to me quick?" And believe me - idiots out there give the passwords down the phone. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Just so everyone knows (none / 0) (#220)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:12:49 PM PST

	"Social engineering" is a phrase hackers use where normal people would just say "tricking people." The hacker grasp of language is truly extraordinary.

	Just so everyone knows - get it right (none / 0) (#285)
	by majhelle on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:19:03 AM PST

	The term 'Social Engineering' first appeared in security journals not from the hacker community. Most 'hackers' wouldn't use the term if they had to.

	add the concept of law to the growing list... (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:14:42 PM PST

	of things you fail to understand. For example: If it fails, service theft. There isn't impossibility here - just lack of determination. Hey, that sounds like the sweet nothings felons whisper to each other in the darkness of their prison cells. Coincidence? I think not. I'll leave you alone to contemplate the disassociation errors in your logic (hint: in the real world, illegal actions provoke deservedly unpleasant consequences) and your future.

	Only if... (none / 0) (#28)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:45:18 PM PST

	If it fails, service theft. If you seen, I put direct service theft at the very end of the list. Low-risk options first. I am not in favor of service theft, as it means loss to the provider (unlike the fake licence), but I want to keep it as a last-resort option. hint: in the real world, illegal actions provoke deservedly unpleasant consequences Only if you get caught. Which means you made a mistake, most likely by "not doing your homework" and overlooking something, or being too high-profile. Some time ago it was illegal here to badmouth the Government. Still, people were doing it. There were news you got only from the Rumour Channel. It was also illegal to listen to Radio Free Europe (or Voice of America); The Government was even jamming it[1]. If my government will decide that I don't belong to the Net, I will shit on that decision of them as well. [1] Which was easy to overcome as well. You just needed to shield the receiver (ie, aluminum foil for cooking), and use highly-directional antenna - jammers were located in other direction than the transmitters. I was only a kid back then, and learned it from a classmate who was a high-frequency buff.

	dumbass. (none / 0) (#40)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:25:59 PM PST

	mad scientist is right. If the government banned free speach and made it illegal to argue againt it would you do so? would you submit? Of course if you wont then you are breaking the law. The kind of thing "the sweet nothings felons whisper to each other in the darkness of their prison cells." If the government imposes facist laws against human rights of free speach and expression then you have to be a loser to not resist. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	excuse me (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:06:00 PM PST

	who said anything about banning Free Speech? The proposition on the table is regulating the internet against hackers, terrorists, pornographers and the illegal like. These are already banned or regulated in the physical world, and we're simply advising you of your inexorable internet future where 1's and 0's are pressed into the service of moral Man instead of computers and their hacker slaves. Now shut your bleating strawmen and begin making plans for an alternate lifestyle. Are you fat? You will look thinner in prison stripes. (NOTE: If cannot stop polluting Adequacy threads with your barely lucid and non sequitur brain farts, please return your nick and have a nice life elsewhere.)

	Collateral damage (none / 0) (#72)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:56:10 PM PST

	who said anything about banning Free Speech? The proposition on the table is regulating the internet against hackers, terrorists, pornographers and the illegal like. ...and killing Free Speech will be just collateral damage.

	oh, I see (none / 0) (#75)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:25:49 PM PST

	before the unregulated Internet, there was no free speech. Therefore, as soon as we regulate the Internet, we will revert back to totalitarian fascism. Gotcha++ Again, we only seek parity with the physical world. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Dont you live in the physical world -- outside of your room, I mean? It's nice out there in Main Street America. It's like the old Internet, sort of, only much safer. Remember, Freedom is useless if you cannot live long enough to enjoy it.

	More accurately... (none / 0) (#158)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:06:23 PM PST

	before the unregulated Internet, there was no free speech. Therefore, as soon as we regulate the Internet, we will revert back to totalitarian fascism. Gotcha++ Once long time ago, the means available for exercising the free speech were roughly equal for everyone. (One of the prerequisites for free speech to have any impact is to be heard. When nobody hears you, it doesn't matter if you have or don't have the right to talk freely.) In contemporary world, the small private radio and TV stations diminished in both power and count, the rest consolidated or was bought by bigger subjects. There is several networks owning all the biggest transmitters, and the actual number of the owners is even smaller. The owners often own parts of several networks at once. (Same in "dead-tree" newspapers industry.) Speech that was uncomfortable to anyone with closer ties to the Networks Owners - or the ones they depend to, usually the Advertising Clients - naturally had less chance to get aired or printed. The bigger station/network, the stronger such influences. Meanwhile, the Internet sneaked into the equation and partially leveled the playing field again. Again, we only seek parity with the physical world. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Dont you live in the physical world -- outside of your room, I mean? It's nice out there in Main Street America. It's like the old Internet, sort of, only much safer. Yes, we seek parity with the physical world. The physical world is bought out. Or you think it would be possible to run nationwide independent media TV or radio news channel? Remember, Freedom is useless if you cannot live long enough to enjoy it. It's what self-defense is for. Being informed is a crucial part of it. In order to get an information, you have to receive (see, read, hear) it. Someone has to transmit (draw, write, say) it. It has to get to you somehow (through a TV, radio, newspapers, The Net, or the Gossip Channel). This is a chain. Any of its elements is missing - and you failed in getting the information. So the right to spread the information is natural part of the free speech doctrine. It's where the Internet comes into the game. It's why its anarchist nature has to be preserved for any price.

	ok, i believe you (none / 0) (#174)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:45:35 PM PST

	It's what self-defense is for. Being informed is a crucial part of it. Well, if you have an informed friend, ask him to open an account here. Meanwhile, you continue to confuse informed with "disappearing into my navel." Honestly, I have yet to fully understand one of your unfocused rants. You're simply drowning in an ocean of unrelated, inchoate thinking. (Your nick is apropos. Mad scientist is a euphemism for crank.) Try summoning a terse, lucid, coherent argument if you want a discussion. As it is, replying to you just gives you the opportunity to commit more verbal diarrhea on compounded tangents. It's where the Internet comes into the game. It's why its anarchist nature has to be preserved for any price. See, what the fuck does that mean? Are you pretending to be a political theorist now? You are missing a lot of intervening steps, my crank friend. Anyway, here's the bottom line. We know hackers will get drunk and commit internet crimes on the new Internet. Truancy and misdemeanors occur in the physical world as well, but the new Internet will be law abiding, just as the physical world is now and the current internet is not. We will suffer the occasional pathetic hacker gladly because we, will be in control. See, hackers arent technologically gifted individuals, they are the janitors of the digital age; and their drunken mistakes (while sober they will live in fear of the new internet) will track the authorities to their doors by design. There's an architectural proof of this based on cryptography but, as a hacker, you are too inadequate by far to understand it. Now this is the tricky part: because hackers are as dim as other common criminals, they will never understand the New Internet, and will therefore never be the threat of your vainglorious imagination. Remember, if hackers understood computers, they'd be computer scientists, not hackers. Do you think criminals choose a life of crime? Do you think people wake up with the random thought "medical school is too easy. I think I'll drop out a pickpocket." Hackers are pickpockets of the digital age, not doctors. hope of understanding because criminals are dim.

	Thanks. (none / 0) (#203)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:48:26 AM PST

	(Your nick is apropos. Mad scientist is a euphemism for crank.) Ad hominem attack. I heard they are in fashion this season. On the other hand, crank can also mean "performance, especially sustained performance" (from automotive slang). Then it is a compliment. In that case, thanks. :) See, what the fuck does that mean? That attempts to regulate The Net will take away its most important feature: openness of access and chance to publish for everyone. Are you pretending to be a political theorist now? No. You are missing a lot of intervening steps, my crank friend. Where? but the new Internet will be law abiding, just as the physical world is now and the current internet is not. Will the Big Players have to be law abiding as well, or will the thugs focus only on the small players? We will suffer the occasional pathetic hacker gladly because we, will be in control. You. In control. Good joke. See, hackers arent technologically gifted individuals, If not they, then who? How you will explain their results? Mere luck? they are the janitors of the digital age; Someone has to clean up the mess made by the lusers Gates spawned to replace the computer-literate. and their drunken mistakes (while sober they will live in fear of the new internet) will track the authorities to their doors by design. Personally, I don't drink. I also don't fear of the New Internet. If it will ever come, it will have enough holes to let the civil disobedience flourish. There's an architectural proof of this based on cryptography but, as a hacker, you are too inadequate by far to understand it. Try and explain. Or are you peddling snake oil? Now this is the tricky part: because hackers are as dim as other common criminals, they will never understand the New Internet, and will therefore never be the threat of your vainglorious imagination. Just wait... and see. And don't complain then you hadn't been warned. Remember, if hackers understood computers, they'd be computer scientists, not hackers. Maybe they just don't like all the rules and office politics. And the paperwork. And where is any proof they don't understand computers? Do you think criminals choose a life of crime? Do you think people wake up with the random thought "medical school is too easy. I think I'll drop out a pickpocket." What about "Medical school is too expensive"? Hackers are pickpockets of the digital age, not doctors. hope of understanding because criminals are dim. Remember this next time when you will face a problem which solution will either be legally unobtainable (ie, copying a movie from a DVD to a VHS, or making two closed-source programs talk with each other, or getting them to operate in conditions they weren't designed for), or too expensive (ie, rescuing data from crashed filesystem), or just not offered on the market because it isn't worth of the hassle vs money - especially when you add the bureaucratical annoyances with the licences you seem to be so fond of.

	Or More Better.. (none / 0) (#160)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:15:47 PM PST

	Life is worthless unless you are free to enjoy it. See opening sentence to Declaration of Independence.

	We do not condone this type of law breaking (none / 0) (#26)
	by iat on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:42:07 PM PST

	Regarding TVs, the UK phone detection vans are more of a myth than of a real thing. [...] Even if they would really have the detectors, it is easy to foil them: don't use regular TV, but put a TV card to the computer. The detectors "see" the electromagnetic noise emitted by horizontal deflection coils, and are tuned to 15.625 kHz. By using a scan convertor, in this case TV card, the computer-TV setup operates on frequency of the monitor, and TV detector doesn't see it. Will citizens of the UK please note that it is illegal to watch television without a licence. Thanks to you, the licence payers, Great Britain has the greatest broadcasting network in the world - a worldwide network of television and radio stations, plus a website for good measure. The quality of programmes produced by the BBC is second to none. Without the licence fee, the BBC would be forced to display advertisements and would lose its integrity as it fights to win a share of the audience and to please advertisers. So please buy a TV licence if you don't have one, you're only cheating yourself. Furthermore, attempting to escape the detector van in this way will likely get you imprisoned. The author of the parent comment is a known troll and has posted "information" on evading detection that he knows to be factually inaccurate. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	hey I have 3 unlicensed TV's (none / 0) (#37)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:19:35 PM PST

	I dont watch BBC though because IT SUCKS. ITV is actually better and they get money from advertising. I dont agree that I am forced to spend 100 pounds on a license even if I dont want to watch BBC. And the author was right about TV detectors and their evasion. Its all bullshit. They just harrass anyone who hasnt bought a license - assuming that everyone must own a TV. losers. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Criminal (none / 0) (#61)
	by bc on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:57:31 PM PST

	You make me sick. People like you, knowing lawbreakers, mean the rest of us have to pay more and are undermining the greatest cultural repository in the UK. I see it as my moral duty to report your IP to the appropriate authorities with a link to this post to boot. How dare you break the law and boast about it here. I hope they fine you £1000 and send you to chokey for 2 months to learn the error of your ways. ♥, bc.

	heh (none / 0) (#128)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:48:59 AM PST

	I bet you $1000 they dont catch me. LOL actually im using a http proxy so the IP displayed isnt mine. Also - maybe im a liar and I do have a license. But you may doubt both of the above and still wish to inform to authorities :) You know, Mr TV detector comes round and I just say "sorry you cant come in as you have no warrant and this is private property". easy. I dont even use the BBC - eastenders is total crap and thats all they seem to be showing nowadays...oh and their state censored news bullitins. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Hey Mr Potato Error (none / 0) (#133)
	by dmg on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:53:42 AM PST

	I dont even use the BBC - eastenders is total crap and thats all they seem to be showing nowadays...oh and their state censored news bullitins. We agree on something. The chance of getting any useful information from the BBC about (for example) the implications of Britain joining the Euro are close to zero. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	yup (none / 0) (#143)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:00:45 AM PST

	heh too right. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Not so fast criminal spud (none / 0) (#289)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Mon Aug 5th, 2002 at 04:09:09 PM PST

	You know, Mr TV detector comes round and I just say "sorry you cant come in as you have no warrant and this is private property". easy. From GrassUpYourNeighbours: TV licence inspectors: as a last resort, they can get a warrant giving them the power to enter and search your home, if they reasonably suspect that you own a TV and have not got a licence, or have a black and white licence for a colour TV. The warrant lasts for a month and allows the TV licence inspectors to enter at a reasonable time. So that TV licence enforcer may well have that warrant to send you for a well deserved two years down at her majesty's pleasure.

	You have a weird set of values (none / 0) (#161)
	by iat on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:24:32 PM PST

	I dont agree that I am forced to spend 100 pounds on a license even if I dont want to watch BBC. It doesn't matter whether or not you like it, the law says that you must have a TV licence in order to watch television. You can't just pick and choose, and ignore those laws that you disagree with or that are too much trouble/expense to comply with. If everyone did that, society would collapse. Fortunately, after you've been arrested and thrown into gaol for not owning a TV licence, I'm sure you'll feel right at home with other people who share your contempt of the law. I think you'll particularly like to "get to know" Big Dirk, your cellmate, when he decides that he'll ignore for the law that makes male rape illegal. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	UK TV license (none / 0) (#157)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:54:26 PM PST

	The only thing you have to do to get a TV license is pay some money. My license does not require me to to have any particular knowledge of the internet and it does not say what type of TV I can use (Assuming I got a full license, not a B&W one). I don't have to have a license to have a telephone, why should I have to have a license to use the Internet?

	How sad. (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:26:18 PM PST

	This is, of course, typical of the incoherent, right-wing nonsense that is posted on this web site frequently. It therefore comes as no surprise at all to learn that it's author is "dmg" - Chief Muppet at adequacy.org. Let me guess; only those deemed 'adequate' will be exempt from these licenses? You need a good sound thrashing. It beggars belief that you can actually find the time to write this sort of rubbish. To address your ill-conceived bullshit point, maybe we should have licenses for every day life! Only those with 'special licenses' can talk or complain about something! You've got to be <i>pretty damn</i> special if you think you'll get a 'voting license'!! No, no, no... Voting licenses are reserved only for the elite, the adequate ones, the intelligentsia, the digerati!! Shame you'll be last in line for one, isn't it?

	Typical incoherent liberal. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
	by dmg on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:54:41 PM PST

	This is, of course, typical of the incoherent, right-wing nonsense that is posted on this web site frequently. Tranlation: I am a liberal and do not agree with the political stance of the author. It therefore comes as no surprise at all to learn that it's author is "dmg" - Chief Muppet at adequacy.org. Translation: I am a liberal, and cannot actually refute the argument so I will resort to an ad-hominem attack. Let me guess; only those deemed 'adequate' will be exempt from these licenses? Translation: I am a liberal, and I will now misrepresent what dmg said, and put words into his mouth, since I cannot refute his arguments You need a good sound thrashing. Translation: I am a liberal, and you had the audacity to disagree with me, therefore I will commit violence against your person to gloss over the fact that I cannot refute your arguments. It beggars belief that you can actually find the time to write this sort of rubbish. Translation: I am a liberal, I cannot refute your argument, but I can hurl insults. To address your ill-conceived bullshit point Translation: I am a liberal, I cannot refute your arguments. I will resort to profanity to prove how correct my views are. maybe we should have licenses for every day life! Only those with 'special licenses' can talk or complain about something! You've got to be pretty damn special if you think you'll get a 'voting license'!! No, no, no... Voting licenses are reserved only for the elite, the adequate ones, the intelligentsia, the digerati!! Shame you'll be last in line for one, isn't it? Translation: I am a liberal. In my fantasy world, the liberal is the only person who is entitled to vote. Because I cannot refute dmg's coherent arguments in favor of Internet licenses, I will instead work myself up into an erotic frenzy as I indulge my fantasy of a liberal controlled world where only people with whom I agree are entitled to vote. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Har-de-har-har (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:08:11 PM PST

	I actually didn't think you warranted a proper response. I obviously have far more important things to consume my time with but I'll make an exception here, just to disprove you. You are clearly an ignorant, right-wing nut who is convinced the Internet is the sole property of the United States of America. If the internet was US property, then a licensing system is perfectly feasible. Of course it'd work, but the idea would still be a most ridiculous one. Sorry to have to break it to you but the internet is not American therefore a licensing system would be impossible to enforce without cutting off the USA from the outside world (nothing new there). Unless that is, you're talking about taking over the world and forcing foreign governments to comply with your pathetic desires. You are a control freak and to refute that claim is ridiculous. The good thing is, I guess, that crackpots like you rarely make an impression on those who are in control. I can lie soundly in bed at night, safe in the knowledge that your politics will always be confined to the soap box. There you go. I've ripped your preposterous trash to pieces in only a few words. Good night.

	God, the ignorance. Get your nose out of man pages (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:44:13 PM PST

	long enough to learn what's happened in the world while you were busy trying to convince Lunix to talk to the internet over a winmodem. You are clearly an ignorant, right-wing nut who is convinced the Internet is the sole property of the United States of America. No, this is simply your strawman and is completely inconsequential because AOL is in fact a transnationally chartered corporation with offices all around the world, with "fiber" buried under all the continents and threading all the oceans, and with global satellites in geosynchronous orbit around every time zone. Certainly there are rogue states, but to paraphrase President Bush, "they are not with us", if you catch my drift, and if any of them are still listening instead of making plans to prematurely meet their heathen makers.

	This is funny (none / 0) (#32)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:06:48 PM PST

	No, this is simply your strawman and is completely inconsequential because AOL is in fact a transnationally chartered corporation with offices all around the world, with "fiber" buried under all the continents and threading all the oceans, and with global satellites in geosynchronous orbit around every time zone. Um, no. AOL is not a huge global giant that you make it out to be. AOL system like and other like them (Prdigy, Compuserve, etc) tie into networks, cabling, and orbit satellites owned by telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc. AOL doesn't have shit. AOL could fall off the map and the Internet would still be there. The only difference would be not be presented with the cluttered welcome screen and hearing "You've Got Mail" all the time. A vast majority of the ISPs across the world are just like AOL. They don't run fiber, they don't have satellites, they have contracts with telecommunications companies. when AOL bought Time Warner they gained Time Warner networks and TIME WARNER's networks and Time Warner contracts. Because Time Warner is a telecommunications company. They are American companies. They have contracts with OTHER telecommunications companies in other countries. AOL doesn't run fiber in Europe and such. If AOL Time Warner flopped on its ass the Internet would still be there. About 1/3 of od the people wouldn't be able to connected and a number of services may be lots but the vast majority of the Internet would still be there. AOL Time Warner is one of 3 of the largest telecomunications companies out there. There's also Cox, and Comcast. And that's just in America. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	idiot (none / 0) (#36)
	by osm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:17:15 PM PST

	AOL is the BACKBONE of the internet. What the hell are you talking about? They are almost as responsible for the internet as Microsoft. You should be kissing Bill Gates' and Gerald Levin's ass.

	more like AOL is the backside of the internet. (none / 0) (#45)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:43:18 PM PST

	AOL is nothing in the scheme of things. They dont run the backbone of the internet at all. Neither does Microsoft run the internet. AOL and microsoft dont even run the US portion of the internet. AOL might be well known internationally but only as a cheap ISP. I can name countless others. Just tell me exactly what you think Microsoft and AOL are supposedly able to control? I mean where did you pull the "AOL is the backbone of the internet crap from?" you made it up out of lack of anything solid. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	let me explain this to you (none / 0) (#67)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:27:56 PM PST

	You do know the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web don't you? Probably not since so many of you claim that adequacy.org is the most controversial site on the Internet. The WWW is only a small portion of the Internet. It exists within the Internet. Sorry but that is the simplest way I can explain it. AOL exists with the WWW. And if I was going to thank anyone for trivial little AOL-esque programs I would thank the founders of CompuServe (originally Compu-Serve) which was the first computer time-sharing service. Back then that's what you got was time sharing. That was back in 1969. When did the big hoopla over AOL start? AOL aint squat. They are just now setting up AOL with the existing Time Warner networks to provide broadband access to more areas. The areas they cover now are extremly limited. Stupid poeple seem to forget high speed backbones were around much longer than AOL. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I agree with NAWL (none / 0) (#42)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:38:32 PM PST

	AOL is nothing in the wide scheme of the internet. Take any part of the internet away and it will still be there virtually undamaged. The internet is owned by noone and can be regulated by noone. Not even the US. "Certainly there are rogue states" and countries like brazil, holland, morocco, united kingdom, france, germany, israel, russia, china, australia, new zealand, austria, oh the list goes on. ALl of which do not fall under US juristriction. Singapore has no internet laws. The US cant extradite any hackers from there or regulate what anyone posts. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	please concentrate (none / 0) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:35:32 PM PST

	AOL is nothing in the wide scheme of the internet. Ye gods, what part of the new, regulated Internet dont you understand? The part that's like the old, soon to be illegal, unregulated internet, 10% of which hasnt currently been absorbed by AOL-Time-Warner's backbone? That part will either make its owners wealthy when they sell out to AOL, or it will make its owners prisoners when they resist International Law. Mercifully, businessmen arent immoral hackers without a shred of common sense and decency. Your futile battle is over before it began.

	try again (none / 0) (#78)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:36:05 PM PST

	10% of which hasnt currently been absorbed by AOL-Time-Warner's backbone ? That part will either make its owners wealthy when they sell out to AOL, or it will make its owners prisoners when they resist International Law. Where do you get this information that AOL Time Warner controls 90% of the Internet? AOL Time Warner is only 1 of 3 of the top telecommunications companies in America. What about Cox Communications (Cox Enterprises Inc.), Comcast Corporation (which recently took over AT&T's broadband networks), Sprint, MCI, AT&T? AOL ain't shit. There are telecommunications companies on the tiny island of Japan that could smack AOL Time Warner around like a little bitch. Let's see Comcast took over AT&T's networks. As of Sept. 30, AT&T Broadband had 924,000 broadband telephony customers, 1.4 million high-speed data customers, about 3.2 million digital video customers and a total of 13.7 million cable subscribers, according to a company statement. Let's not forget that MS has promised $4-billion to which ever company acquired AT&T'[s broadband networks. Comcast is the third-largest cable company in the U.S., with 8.4 million subscribers, according to the company's Web site. number based solely on cable subscriber For its part, AOLTW has been trying to come to some sort of agreement with AT&T, especially over AT&T's 25.5% limited partnership in Time Warner Entertainment. Looks like AOL Time Warner got FUCKED on that one. Time Warner Cable has 12.7 million analog cable TV subscribers and, as of the end of 2000, 946,000 high-speed Internet customers, according to the company's Web site. Add that to the number of AOL subscribers. Gee I don't see AOL conttolling a majority of SHIT! Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	some advice (none / 0) (#85)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:16:04 PM PST

	Stick to that subset of superficial computer knowledge known as Lunix. Business stratagems such as numbered LLCs run by assetless paper tigers, silent partnerships, political protection against disclosure for legitimate reasons of national security against hacking threats, and inscrutable off-shore ownership trails -- well, none of these are as easy to understand as using the "ren" command on a system which renames files with "mv".

	Look (none / 0) (#122)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:57:03 AM PST

	If you really believe the total bullSht about AOL posted here then would you post some sources which show that it owns 90% of the internet. lol what a joke when it doenst even own the majority of one country. Over here in the UK, AOL is just a simple ISP. The kind of company that makes almost nothing in money. There are supermarkets which own more of the internet over here. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	You are obviously making this up (none / 0) (#121)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:53:45 AM PST

	otherwise post some sources. I doubt you will. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	This is Plan A (none / 0) (#130)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:03:08 AM PST

	because AOL is in fact a transnationally chartered corporation with offices all around the world, with "fiber" buried under all the continents and threading all the oceans, and with global satellites in geosynchronous orbit around every time zone. The interesting point about is that removing AOL permanently from the internet would go completely unnoticed by all licensed internet users. In fact, the removal of AOL internet routes would cause the Internet to run faster and smoother, as it no longer has to deal with the teeming mass of ignorant Americans that plague it.

	You people are insane! (none / 0) (#267)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:26:22 PM PST

	THIS ISN'T A RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE STANDPOINT! It is liberals that want increased government controls. It's not conservatives. Conservatives are people who are backing off from big government. Both of you need to wake up, read the policies for your political leanings, and change your terms to suit. DMG, you are obvilously very liberal, by the definition the real world uses. You're probably in favor of gun control too, another typically liberal stand point. I'm willing to bet you like Barbera Boxer, right? Christ, it was funny seeing you guys frolic about with your terms backward, but now it's just getting irritating. Don't smear my political leanings with your filth, dmg. You're soundly on the side of increased government, increased government spending, and increased government control of what it obviously shouldn't be sticking its nose in. The Anonymous Reader above was taking a conservative stance here. I'm sorry, folks, but the american Republican Party is NOT NOT NOT a purely conservative party! God, you people are stubborn as oxen, you just insist on being wrong and wallowing in it.

	I refute that (none / 0) (#25)
	by iat on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:25:36 PM PST

	It therefore comes as no surprise at all to learn that it's author is "dmg" - Chief Muppet at adequacy.org. dmg is not Chief Muppet at Adequacy.org. I'm officially Chief Muppet and I've got the certificate to prove it. While I'm the Kermit around these parts, dmg is simply a lowly Fozzie Bear. And you, Mr. Anonymous Reader, are not fit even to be Beaker. I hope this sets the record straight. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	You are a cripple (none / 0) (#113)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:11:25 AM PST

	IAT, just stop that 'warhammer' humour and stop it right now! What did you think when you posted that reply? You thought it'd be funny didn't you? It's not. Maybe your small clique, who hilariously thinks they're the Internet's elite, may find it funny. Hahahahah 'Adequacy, it's the most controversial site on the WWW' - hahaha you don't know how much your collective sense of self-righteousness cracks me up. Keep going.

	Open To Answers? (none / 0) (#212)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:18:32 PM PST

	If the author is the owner of this site then maybe he'd care to explain why he uses an Open Source Web Server, on an Open Source Operating System, using an Open Source "collaborative media application", written using an Open Source Programming Language, by people using an Open Source development system? Then again, all those people reading this that think Open Source should be banned, might like to explain why they are using Open Source Software? Of cause, I wouldn't expect you all to abandon your principles and actually use Open Source Software. bye xx

	Linux? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by nx01 on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:23:53 PM PST

	My fellow Adequacy readers will no doubt realize the absurdity in allowing people the freedom to run amuck with black-market "OpenSource[1]" operating systems. I agree that the internet needs to be strictly patroled. How else can we continue to protect our jobs, our lives, and our very country from hackers and terrorists? To that end, I think your ideas on enforcement are good, but could use improvement. More on that later. However, the users of OpenSource Computers will no doubt whine and whine until they are allowed an "Open Implementation". OpenSource Advocates have a history of whining until their petty political ends are met -- just look at how they boycotted nVidia when they didn't "OpenSource their drivers". What this means is that the source code software used to monitor them is open so they can hack it. That way, they can stop it from working. Obviously, the only way to stop them from doing this is to continue to work on legislation to make OpenSource Computers illegal. I would suggest talking to the WIPO and the UN, so the law would be enforced worldwide. As for your system of enforcement: Sounds good, but I have a slight adjustment to suggest. First of all, the encryption. We have already shown that most encryption is ineffective. However, there is one type of encryption that is completely secure: the One Time Pad. The way this would work is as follows: Licenced Internet User logs on Licenced Internet User downloads the one time pad for the day from the website Software uses one time pad to make all transmissions to other computers completely, 100% secure Of course, the pads would have to be synched every day -- if everybody was using different one time pads, then nobody would be able to communicate. The pad for the day would have to be mirrored in insecure plaintext on a web site so you could sync up in the first place. It's the only way to be completely secure. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	Futile effort. (none / 0) (#21)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:14:08 PM PST

	What this means is that the source code software used to monitor them is open so they can hack it. That way, they can stop it from working. Reverse engineering. If a CPU can interpret the set of instructions, a determined programmer can too. Been there, done that. Here goes your security by obscurity. Obviously, the only way to stop them from doing this is to continue to work on legislation to make OpenSource Computers illegal. I would suggest talking to the WIPO and the UN, so the law would be enforced worldwide. Well, then I will have to go underground fulltime. No big deal. At least this will unite the techies together and there will be some reason to face-to-face meetings. You will also have a problem with recall of existing open-source installations. There is no central evidence of sold/copied CDs. Not all machines are connected to the Net so Netwide-scale OS fingerprint sweeps will not cover everything too. People often misplace backup CDs and then forget about them so even if you force them to comply voluntarily you will not get everything. And, unlike physical stuff, a single file you missed can be copied to everyone who wants it. Not everyone is willing to conform to every stupid law. Software uses one time pad to make all transmissions to other computers completely, 100% secure Either all the computers will have to have the same OTP, which defeats its purpose, or the communication will have to be decrypted at the side of the ISP. Which leaves central-point vulnerability[1]. There are also the issues with transport of the OTP after the login. Also, the issues of authentication of the users. There is no 100% security. You can get 90%. You can get 99%. You can get 99.9%. You can never get 100%. This is generic rule. [1] Reminds me the A3A8 encryption of GSM phone calls. It's cool and neat thing, except that the cipher strength is in many countries artificially weakened and that the base stations often transmit the calls unencrypted by a microwave beam and they can be listened on with a off-the-shelf frequency scanner.

	oh, go mow the lawn (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:44:52 PM PST

	Well, then I will have to go underground fulltime. No big deal. I think your mother might have different plans for you. In any case, seems like you'll be going to a lot of effort just to surf a regulated Internet. You werent thinking of publishing on that internet without a license, were you? If you understood technology, you would understand how such action is tantamount to bragging to the authorities in a letter whose envelope included your legitimate return address. Your every solution to the new Internet's restrictions appears to be "I dont care, I shall go to jail instead". Actually, that is our solution to you, not the other way around.

	You dont understand (none / 0) (#35)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:14:17 PM PST

	The people who make the internet - the network administrators, the programmers, the hackers - they all would rather die than see the internet which they contribute to imprisoned and controlled by an ignorant state body. There could quite easily be a strike of course. Or maybe we would have to resort to malicious hackerism and destruction of the internet ourselves. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Destruction is counterproductive. (none / 0) (#44)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:43:03 PM PST

	Or maybe we would have to resort to malicious hackerism and destruction of the internet ourselves. Not too good. DoS attacks and other kinds of destructive weapons are to be kept in arsenal, but have very specific uses and have too many sidee effects; they are to be used carefully, rarely, and with neurosurgical accuracy. Every piece of infrastructure you destroy can be the one you will need in next move. Another good tactics is to occassionally generate false alarms. Rats planted to a facility are perfect way to make its operators not care about small noises. In my opinion, it is better to continually study and keep being prepared. Know the networks better than the adversary. Collect experiences from driving vehicles to arc welding to using and maintenance of guns to low-level networking. Keep contacts to people and build reliable social networks. (As I heard, hard in USA, with the local habit of moving each while; face-to-face networks then suffer.) When the Goons will come, sink underground. Sever unreliable ties, build a cell, count with loses and mishaps in design phase. Lead double life, as you learned before from studying Cold War espionage. If the times will become too tough, "conform" and become agent sleeper, prepared to wake up when the ground will cool down a bit. The War needs live warriors, not dead heroes. Knowledge is power.

	You are right (none / 0) (#46)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:49:30 PM PST

	yes, sorry I wasnt thinking. But the self destruct mechanism is there if needed. The creators and the developers of the internet will always be with us. All my friends studying computer science have the same views about internet regulation. Let hope it never happens. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Gives me hope. (none / 0) (#60)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:54:22 PM PST

	The creators and the developers of the internet will always be with us. The Net was designed to withstand nuclear war; to route around the damaged parts of the network. Censorship is a form of damage, so the network structure itself should be already prepared to fight on our side. All my friends studying computer science have the same views about internet regulation. Good. Gives me some more hope for the future. Let hope it never happens. If we will not allow it, it will not happen. Technicians are the ones who created the Civilization and who keep it running. Never forget about it.

	technicians?! (none / 0) (#62)
	by nathan on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:59:11 PM PST

	Hey, hold on. Technicians have a valued place in society, but they are hardly its founders or its sole members of importance! What about philosophers like Einstein and Newton? What about religious people like Pascal and Ayn Rand? What about writers like Locke and Derrida? What about the humble farmers and men of toil who produce the goods we need to stay alive? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Technicians!! (none / 0) (#66)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:26:07 PM PST

	Technicians have a valued place in society, but they are hardly its founders or its sole members of importance! No; they are just holding the society together. Without them there would be no houses, no water, not even artificial wells. No progress at all. Just trees, and caves. Not even fire. What about philosophers like Einstein and Newton? Physicists. Scientists. Same kind as techies. Technology once wasn't too separated from philosophy, but it was in ancient Greece. What about religious people like Pascal and Ayn Rand? Not overly familiar with the second one. I know the first one as a physicist and an author of logically flawed Pascal wager. What about writers like Locke and Derrida? A nameless techie ages before had to develop pens and paper for them. Hey - even the one who came up with the idea of clay tables was a technically thinking person. What about the humble farmers and men of toil who produce the goods we need to stay alive? Like it or not, they are dependent on technology as well. Who developed ploughs? "Technician" isn't a formal assignment. It is a state of mind.

	reality check (none / 0) (#71)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:50:02 PM PST

	Civilization is what happens when normal people tell technicians what to do. Now stop crying in our Cognacs and begin implementing our regulated Internet.

	Checked, works. (none / 0) (#81)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:41:42 PM PST

	Civilization is what happens when normal people tell technicians what to do. Civilization is when techies get bored with doing things how they are done, or get an idea and want to try it, or get lazy and come up with less laborious ways to do things. Or they get fed up with being told what to do and don't feel about to do a revolution. Now stop crying in our Cognacs and begin implementing our regulated Internet. While you were crying, hackers were working. White peon E2 to E4. Your move.

	check this out (none / 0) (#87)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:22:06 PM PST

	You want to see hackers working to keep people like dmg from gaining ground and working to expose popular software and stop discredidation of OSS? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	...A bit late. (none / 0) (#82)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:46:01 PM PST

	Now stop crying in our Cognacs and begin implementing our regulated Internet. Seems you're a bit late. Quoting: The Eternity service should be resistant not only to usual threats such as natural disasters and vandals, but also to political or court decisions, religious leader orders, activities of secret services and so on.

	you're a fool (none / 0) (#89)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:34:33 PM PST

	The concept of a network eludes you, doesnt it? What good is the Eternity service if it can only legally connect to itself in the new Internet? AOL certainly isnt going to connect to no Eternity. Think, man; follow the "wiring." Do you see how every node in a network topology occupies a law abiding geographic location? You must be one of those Lunixheads who thinks the Internet routes around the structures of the very civilization which make it possible. PAY ATTENTION: NO TECHNICAL "SOLUTION" (HACK) AROUND THE NEW INTERNET CAN BE POSSIBLE. Seriously, how far are you going to indulge your ludicrous fantasy? War? If it has to come to a war against a bunch of pasty faced fat geeks, well, it's been nice knowing you, studly.

	Protocol tunneling (none / 0) (#96)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:36:18 PM PST

	AOL certainly isnt going to connect to no Eternity. Okay. So we will just not ask them before connecting them. PAY ATTENTION: NO TECHNICAL "SOLUTION" (HACK) AROUND THE NEW INTERNET CAN BE POSSIBLE. Thanks, you made my day. This is the best joke I seen today and I seen many. As long as there is any connection between two nodes, it is possible to tunnel information through. Example: A friend of a friend got stuck behind a restrictive firewall, and needed to talk with a computer on its other side. The firewall was allowing next to nothing, but allowed AIM messages. So he wrote a layer for tunneling IP packets through AIM messages. It was slow as hell but worked. This was a bit extreme. However, if you can get two machines talking through any kind of service, you can use this service as a carrier, encapsulating any other protocol. You can use anything - I heard about tunneling through DNS requests. And there is no reason why Eternity (and similar services) shouldn't work via emails. Why there have to be HTTP requests? A request is essentially a message with data request, followed by message with answer on the same connection. No reason why - with speed penalty - it shouldn't work as email request - email answer. I remember Webpage-by-email and FTP-by-email services, back when the Web was rare. War? If it has to come to a war against a bunch of pasty faced fat geeks, well, it's been nice knowing you, studly. Don't underestimate the geeks. And don't piss them off. Some of them know more about weapons and both NBC warfare and infowar than you would be comfortable with. Peon takes the queen. Check. Your move.

	you really are a moron (none / 0) (#101)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 12:43:57 AM PST

	Okay. So we will just not ask them before connecting them. No, you do not understand. You cannot connect to them because there are no wires going from you to them. You cant do squat on the internet without prior fucking peering and connectivity arrangements, you moron, and since backbone providers like AOL will respect the law if they wish to remain large backbone providers, you can expect to peer with the guy holding a tin can at the other end of your short rope. snip I cannot be bothered to read beyond your first error. You clearly are out of your depth on this subject.

	Why are you arguing about vaporware? (none / 0) (#105)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:02:23 AM PST

	It doesn't exist. It's a hacker pipe-dream. It will never exist, for a variety of reasons. Who cares if a bunch of nerds think that they can implement a magic network? If we believed every single grandiose claim made by undergraduate nerds, we'd all be unable to use computers, thanks to the obvious superiority of linux preventing any normal human beings from ever understanding them.

	actually... (none / 0) (#127)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:36:52 AM PST

	An easy method for a 'magic network' is to use two mobile phones attached to seperated computers. The mobile communication would then act as the 'wire'. Obviously I cant call anywhere using a mobile in the US because certain countries are blocked -such as Iraq - but there are ways of getting round this. To communicate with an illegal country like Iraq from the US for example, you would have to route the call (as any mobile calls directly from the US to Iraq would be investigated). This would require a setup of computers and mobiles acting as proxies. Each computer would have a reciever mobile and a sender mobile and the software to manage them both. This setup would be called the box. First start from your US box and call a box in an allied country such as the UK. This wouldnt be suspicious to the US authorities. Then the UK box forwards the message on to a box in a country such as Greece - not suspicious to UK authorities and the US authorities wouldnt be able to see this part of the transfer. Then the Greek box could forward the message straight onto Iraq - or take even more routes beforehand. Notice the way that the message travels slowly across more internet liberal countries to avoid suspicion - any large jump would sound alarm bells either at the NSA or MI5. In fact, the box in the UK could just connect directly to a UK ISP and tunnel all the data back and forth to america, allowing the US citizen full access the internet no matter what the US government restricted on US DNS servers. The best thing is that the authorities in the US would never be able to trace the route after the first hop as US Mobiles have different standards from the rest of the world. It would be expensive but fast and highly anomynous. For even higher security the messages could be encoded and sterographed into a recorded voice message. Data rates and exchange would be similar to using an ASDL line straight to Iraq. Its not myth or anything - its 100% technically possible. All parts of this idea are already used seperately for various things. All im suggesting is putting them all together. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	give up (none / 0) (#141)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 09:25:20 AM PST

	An easy method for a 'magic network' is to use two mobile phones attached to seperated computers. You should concentrate on graduating from high school with English, potatoeater, and leave technology to Microsoft certified engineers. The obvious flaw in your fantasy is that cellular phones are not walkie-talkies, and that cellular phone networks are obviously big business concerns in love with the rule of law which guarantees their continued existence and profitability. I feel like I'm changing diapers whenever I have to reply to you. Let me repeat what I wrote earlier. There is no hack around the proposed new Internet. Hackers will not create their own Internet any more than they will pick up shovels and lay fiber along railroad tracks they built the previous year running across a hitherto undiscovered swath of country between Canada and the United States which they presently govern. Understand? Silly boy.

	So what you are saying is.... (none / 0) (#142)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 09:50:59 AM PST

	You want the US to have its own internet. You dont want any part of the network to fall outside US juristriction. You obviously failed to understand how the mobile phone idea would hack around your 'new internet'. That mobile phone networks are big companies and abide by the law is irrelevant. How do they know whether im calling my aunt in the UK or sending information the the UK which will be passed on? Answer: they cant tell. No matter how law abiding they are this method works. The US ISPs might be regulated but the european ISPs wont be. So what stops me from dialling into an ISP based in europe from the US and getting access to the 'old internet'? Instead of whining that I should "give up" and moaning at my spelling, why dont you try answering some of my questions for a change? After all, Im not the one who has to give up - you are proposing changes so it's you who has to come up with a real plan or give up. Your 'new internet' can only work if you ban all international calls from mobiles and landlines. Basically you will have to block all communications off from the world and seal the US border. Otherwise people will always be able to tunnel "illegal" data is disguise as legitimate data. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Ha! Ignorant Fool. (none / 0) (#182)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:00:12 PM PST

	You know what's scary? The 'nerds' will pick up shovels and lay wire. I would set up a wireless network between me and my friends in an instant, its not hard, in fact, its VERY simple. Oh, and, for once, why don't you do some research on what you are talking about. Its impossible to create a "hack proof" network. Thats like making a "crime proof" country, it doesn't happen.

	Wrong. As usual. (none / 0) (#172)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:51:22 PM PST

	It doesn't exist. It's a hacker pipe-dream. It will never exist, for a variety of reasons. It already exists, in various incarnations and development stages. Tough luck, T. Who cares if a bunch of nerds think that they can implement a magic network? There is a lot of ways how to interconnect the machines. Modems, both landline and cellular. Microwave links. Infrared laser links. Radio. A serial or Ethernet cable dragged from one house or appartment to another. It's easy to build a neighbourhood network on a shoestring budget, a so-called "toasternet". Then you can interconnect these networks by dial-up links. Larger amounts of data can be transfered longfistance either by "borrowing" the services of the Officially Approved Net, or by just physically sending the data medium; in case you would suggest intercepting and checking the CDs, garage band records and steganography are our friends. Or you can use the history-proven conferences over BBS systems, good old Fidonet. Or the UUCP networks, back from the times when there were no backbone lines and no permanent connections, just time-scheduled longdistance dialups. The history gives us a plenty of various technologies to fall back to. If we believed every single grandiose claim made by undergraduate nerds, we'd all be unable to use computers, thanks to the obvious superiority of linux preventing any normal human beings from ever understanding them. Normal human beings already don't understand the computers. They don't understand even how microwave ovens work. The schools aren't doing too stellar job in helping people to develop critical, investigative and independent thinking; as the result, average people are content with just point and click and are too lazy to even think about asking how things work.

	Too true (none / 0) (#187)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 04:35:41 AM PST

	"The schools aren't doing too stellar job in helping people to develop critical, investigative and independent thinking" I'm so glad you said that. Don't you think it's a pretty silly idea to go to these ridiculous extremes to "invent" a network that won't work, in order to send data in secret, when you simply don't have any secrets worth keeping? Perhaps some self-criticism is in order.

	well.. (none / 0) (#195)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:34:24 AM PST

	well if compilers and programming becomes illegal to many of us then doing it in secret seems pretty sensible. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Clarifying... (none / 0) (#225)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:07:54 PM PST

	Don't you think it's a pretty silly idea to go to these ridiculous extremes to "invent" a network that won't work, History (UUCP networks, BBSs, Fidonet...) shown they are already invented and, until obsoleted, they were (and sometimes still are) working pretty well. What I am proposing is just to reimplement old designs. in order to send data in secret, when you simply don't have any secrets worth keeping? You are proposing to criminalize next to everything even remotely funny[1]. If I still want to have/acquire/use/exercise them, then I have to keep them secret, or I risk jail time. I want to keep using my toys even if you'd succeed, which will require usage of secrecy-keeping measures.[2] [1] compilers, debuggers, unlicenced (read: free) speech... [2] Even without them, it's better to treat everyone not trusted as an adversary, and to give out informations only on need-to-know basis. Ie, a store doesn't need to know what goods you are buying; no reason to tie your purchases to your identity (via club cards). Whenever you leave some records/trails somewhere, keep in mind they can be requested by any lawyer through a subpoena, and that lawyers are being used as offensive weapons, so even if you "don't do anything wrong" you are still at risk. Also, data are for sale; there is no reason why your health insurance company should eventually know what you eat (and then hike your fees). And keep in mind the potential of your data being intentionally misinterpreted or misrepresented.

	actually..... (none / 0) (#124)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:12:05 AM PST

	actually at a price you can set up a network connection to another 'illegal' countries internet services by using a mobile phone. I think you see how it works. From what I see you are proposing an internet wall to be built around America imprisoning it from the outside world just like the Chinese government are already doing. it'll never happen. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Conferencing (none / 0) (#283)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 11:59:39 PM PST

	Quote: No, you do not understand. You cannot connect to them because there are no wires going from you to them Begins: Never heard of phone-line tapping? How about conference calls? Due to the processes involved in transmission protocols (caused by the unreliability of transmission media, ie: PHONE LINE) commonly known as packeting, you can simply tap your computer into an existing 'accepted' connection and bleed data into and off of it. BTW: you guys make me laugh, theres some funky ideas floating around (mainly the techies), and theres some really dumb-ass ones aswell (mainly the techno- and hacker-phobes) Regards, [mLn]Fanged <=X=>

	talk sense (none / 0) (#123)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:03:23 AM PST

	"Do you see how every node in a network topology occupies a law abiding geographic location?" Many Napster clones based in europe are outside US juristriction and therefore cannot be prosecuted - is that the kind of law abiding you are talking about? "PAY ATTENTION: NO TECHNICAL "SOLUTION" (HACK) AROUND THE NEW INTERNET CAN BE POSSIBLE." Its the new internet thats impossible. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	I promised myself I wouldn't respond to this tripe (none / 0) (#150)
	by nx01 on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:11:49 PM PST

	But what the hell. Many Napster clones based in europe are outside US juristriction and therefore cannot be prosecuted - is that the kind of law abiding you are talking about? I imagine you've conveniently forgot about laws like the DCMA that are enforfced everywhere in the world. Remember Jon, the high school kid from Norway who hacked the illegal DeCSS program? Or Dmitri, the malicious Russian hacker that destroyed Adobe's content protection? Both were taken care of. The US effectively has jurisdiction throughout the civilized world. And, for the uncivilized world, there are other options, like trade embargos and bombing. Its the new internet thats impossible. I totally disagree. We just have to destroy the old internet first. Then, we can create a totally new, totally incompatible, totally unhackable one from the ashes. It will be a good day. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	Funny you should mention those two... (none / 0) (#153)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:18:08 PM PST

	Since they have both been freed without charge. Oh, and you want to piss and moan about OSS? What do you think this site is powered by, pixie dust?

	This site is powered by: (5.00 / 1) (#154)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:32:24 PM PST

	Electricity. HTH

	Irrelevant (none / 0) (#155)
	by nx01 on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:41:26 PM PST

	Since they have both been freed without charge. That's not the point. We were able to arrest them. If the laws we are talking about are implemented, then we won't have to bother about releasing internet criminals. Oh, and you want to piss and moan about OSS? What do you think this site is powered by, pixie dust? This site is powered by a proprietary solution. I'm suprised that you don't know that by now. Ask an editor for details. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	Not irrelevenat (1.00 / 1) (#156)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:49:10 PM PST

	Dimitri was arrested because he was in the US. Answer to that, boycott the US. The guy from Finland who was arrested didn't even do the cracking. Since he was freed without charge, I assume what he did was legal, thankfully since it means I can now watch DVDs on Linux. This site is powered by Scoop (It even says so at the bottom of this very page). Last time I checked, Scoop was open source. Take a look at http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/5/2653/23335 for some information.

	Why internet law cant be International (none / 0) (#194)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:23:40 AM PST

	That guy was arrested because he tried to enter the US and thats when they caught him. They couldnt do anything before that. When using the internet you are liable to the countries laws that you are using the computer from. Just because you access a site in Italy doesnt suddenly make you liable for Italian law. If you live in a country like singapore which has little internet law then if you commit a US offense, which singapore doesnt recognise, then the US has no juristriction. The whole point is you're only liable for the laws of your own country, as its impossible to learn the laws of every country in the world. Imagine if Germany made it illegal to use FTP in their country. Would they then be able to arrest a US citizen for downloading files off of a German FTP site? if that US citizen claimed that they didnt know that german law should they still be imprisonned for commiting a crime not recognised by the US? In the US it is illegal to export encryption software without licence to other countries. But in the UK its not illegal - so where does the law stand if I download encryption software from a US site? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	No, No, No (none / 0) (#216)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:12:22 PM PST

	Why Skylov did was perfectly legal in his own country. Communists don't beleive in intellectual property (ie copyright). What America did was introduce a law that states if somebody breaks American copyright outside of American jurisdiction, then American is entitled to arrest and prosecute that person should he/she be stupid enough to enter American jurisdiction. America once again has decided to ignore International Law in it's own self service.

	thats fair enough (none / 0) (#229)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:54:36 AM PST

	"American is entitled to arrest and prosecute that person should he/she be stupid enough to enter American jurisdiction" Not everyone has to visit the US in their lives. Wheres you law stand for the Russians who stay at home all their lives? Russia isnt communist anymore. It was legal in the same way as its probably (i dont know for sure) legal for americans to pirate russian software (or at least they cant prosecute you for it). Ignoring international law would be sending in bombers to blow up foreigners who broke your laws. Hmm... <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Weapon smuggling (none / 0) (#224)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:51:28 PM PST

	In the US it is illegal to export encryption software without licence to other countries. But in the UK its not illegal - so where does the law stand if I download encryption software from a US site? I would be quite interested in an expert answer. Technically, I think I could be considered a weapon smuggler; about 2 years ago a Chinese friend asked me for (I think I remember it correctly) 128-bit SSL for Netscape. After feeding syntactically-correct bullshit into a download form, the machine checked my IP against network segments and told me I am not from USA/Canada, so I should go away. So I found a US-located open proxy and tried again, this time with success. My lawyer had a field day when I told him the story. He said that in the first case, if the site would allow me download, the site op could be guilty. However, with the check in place, I violated US law myself when cheating it, but while being outside their jurisdiction when doing so - and it was legally clean here, there is no chance mounting a case against me. Moral: Never depend on location-based authentication if you can't ensure the security of all the "trusted" machines.

	Yea I tried a similar thing (none / 0) (#230)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:58:27 AM PST

	Except I was trying to download it for me. But when I filled in the form and downloaded it complained that I wasnt in North America. Eventually I found a site which didnt have a check on it - but had a big red warning about filling in the information correctly. So I bluffed it and downloaded anyway. I didnt even think it was illegal to export it to the UK. I mean duhh we have SSH over here anyway. Exporting encryption software may be illegal but do you know whether it is illegal to export encryption algorithms? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	the new internet is impossible (none / 0) (#193)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:10:04 AM PST

	You hope to convince every country in the world to go along with it? Im not even afraid by the prospect because its so complicated, unnessasary and problem tainted that it will never be attempted. Why not try to ban firearms in the US first? Its a hell of a lot easier. The internet works as it is. Tell me what problems that licensing is supposed to solve? Most other countries would have no licensing scheme so US businesses would suffer as decent US programmers move abroad to work in less regulated environments in Europe and China. Finally US computer companies themselves would move abroad and the US "new internet" would become just a simple email network with a couple of personal pages on it. nothing more. Your government would never have the power to make such a move - it would be resisted by every human rights and civil rights forum in the world as well as just about every company involved in the internet. Microsoft wouldnt like it for a start as it stifles computer education and their future workforce. Even if licensing was established in the US what good would that do? Criminals could easily obtain valid licenses like most car criminals have valid driving licenses. So many people would commit minor offenses like distributing compilers that in the end this practice would be ignored by the law. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	think again about what "new" implies (none / 0) (#242)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:29:14 PM PST

	Hint: unlike the old. You hope to convince every country in the world to go along with it? I doesnt make a shred of difference to me what rogue states do on their own networks. The God fearing U.S of A simply wont peer with them for the safety of Americans. Think of it as missile defense against hostile information. In the immortal words of ESR, you're not getting it The old internet is immoral and will thus be rendered illegal. For what heavenly reason would we strive to emulate it in the new internet? I think you are resisting the insight that your dissolute and immoral way of life -- a parasite feeding off the hard work of innovative computer companies like MSFT -- is about to undergo a popular, overdue transformation. Ok, I feel for you, change is hard for everyone, inertia is comfortable. This is particular true for g**ks because their extra fatty content increases the gravitational pull between their chair and keyboard. Still, you hackers are like dogs; and just as every dog has its ONE day, the sun is about to go down on yours.

	USA Vs. World (none / 0) (#284)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:33:01 AM PST

	I have a couple of nagging questions: <QUOTE>I doesnt make a shred of difference to me what rogue states do on their own networks. The God fearing U.S of A simply wont peer with them for the safety of Americans. <END QUOTE> So for the safety of Americans, the US will ignore itself from the rest of the world. Yes, America will continue with unreliable and out-dated technology while the rest of the world colonises new star systems. <QUOTE> The old internet is immoral and will thus be rendered illegal <END QUOTE> Yelling at someone is immoral, showing anger is immoral, NEWSPAPERS ARE IMMORAL. Are all of these things also to become illegal? I'm sure News Corporation will be _most_ impressed Oh, and I just LOVE how those 'Anonymous Reader' people NEVER reveal their true names - or even an alias. Enjoy :-P [mLn]Fanged <=X=>

	Einstein? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
	by lucius on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:31:04 AM PST

	You are, of course, drunk, right? Einstein, while a brilliant physicist, was at best a second rate philosopher. The guts of your argument I agree with though. And for whoever it is who is asserting that "technicians run the world" or whatever, it is probably worthwhile reading about an experiment performed on monkeys a while ago. I can't find the link now, but in essence experimenters taught a socially inferior monkey how to do a task essential to obtaining food for the group (pulling a lever or something). Now, you might expect that this monkey's social position would rise, as he now controls the food supply. In reality, the alpha monkey just bullied him to get the food for the group. There was no great change to the social structure of the group. With this in mind, we can now draw an analogy with "technicians". Sure they keep the humidicribs and coke machines and power generators working, but they are not the basis of society; this role is left to those in control (and with good reason). Noone wants some small-picture technocrat dictating how things are run, give them a broken turbine shaft to fix instead. Technical people are by nature narrowly focussed, and it is better for everyone that they be managed rather than manage anything of importance themselves.

	Social structure... (none / 0) (#170)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:34:02 PM PST

	Now, you might expect that this monkey's social position would rise, as he now controls the food supply. In reality, the alpha monkey just bullied him to get the food for the group. There was no great change to the social structure of the group. Bullying. How civilized. Isn't it what warrants self-defense, including the use of weapons? A bully today, a victim tomorrow. How does it sound? Technical people are by nature narrowly focussed, and it is better for everyone that they be managed rather than manage anything of importance themselves. Technical people got where they are by their own effort. You won't meet a highclass mfg plant or nuke plant op whose place was bought to him by his daddy. Same with designers, researchers, and developers. What technical people hate the most is when incompetent suits-wearing scums want to dictate them what they can and can't do in their own field of expertise. Ignorance on the management level is a centuries old thing; ie, Charles Babbage said he was asked if his machine will give correct results when fed with incorrect inputs. And then you wonder why techies tend to despise tech laws. Maybe if the Ones With Political Power would more listen to the techies (and less to the executives), the policies wouldn't be so full of holes, wouldn't be so poorly worded, and would contain real fallback modes for case a shit happens or the policy turns to be faulty or too open to misuse/abuse. Give me a knows-his-job technocrat over a babbling philosopher, any day.

	You know what? (1.00 / 1) (#204)
	by lucius on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:48:48 AM PST

	I might write my response to this thread up as a story or diary entry. Look out for it, I'm just a little busy at the moment to give this comment the reply it deserves.

	gee, thanks (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:35:53 PM PST

	The people who make the internet - the network administrators, the programmers, the hackers - they all would rather die than see the internet That's very kind of them. I will privately mourn their loss and publically celebrate the regulated Internet's appearance ahead of schedule. Uhm, are you their cheerleader?

	Oh please. Hackers would sell their mother... (none / 0) (#206)
	by elenchos on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:54:08 PM PST

	...for ten cents over minimum wage and any title with "engineer" in it. Where do you get this crap that they are activists? Look at the DMCA. Look at Dmitry Skylab. Selfishness is a virtue, remember? Hackers don't give a fuck. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Russian example (none / 0) (#210)
	by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 03:34:24 PM PST

	And notice how quickly dropped the suit when the threat of a boycott loomed in the air. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	ADOBE SUX (none / 0) (#211)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 03:40:58 PM PST

	Adobe curled up in the corner like a dog someone hand beaten the shit out of. The FBI is just continuing the bullshit like they did with the Olympic bommber in Atlanta. I that crap and he did even get an apology. The DMCA does nothing more than turn the FBI into patheic security guards that corporations can sic on anyone whenever they want.

	In snow? (none / 0) (#39)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:23:46 PM PST

	I think your mother might have different plans for you. Originally I planned to do genetic engineering. In any case, seems like you'll be going to a lot of effort just to surf a regulated Internet. You werent thinking of publishing on that internet without a license, were you? You don't think the Net is only The Web, do you? The most important services for me are messaging and email. Mailing lists, and email anonymizers, hightech versions of face-to-face Rumour Channels. There are Usenet groups and remailer networks, though they are hassle to both operate and use. There is IRC. There are more services, small and ad-hoc, designed for many purposes. You can't reach massive audience this way, but you can run a small cell. The information propagation rate is slower as the contact between the cells is limited, but it is still there. Leaderless organizations are extremely difficult to break. And, as you could know, where there is a demand there is the supply. Underground networks, "temporary autonomous zones", will emerge - zones without authorities determining what can and can't be said. There will be attempts to dismantle them, but it will lead only to a sort of dynamic equilibrium, literally an information war. If you understood technology, you would understand how such action is tantamount to bragging to the authorities in a letter whose envelope included your legitimate return address. This is the main reason why I included fake identity and service theft in the list of access means; the latter is suggested to be avoided in peace time. (On one side it poses risk, on the other side it increases security - so has to be used cautiously.) This is also the reason why I am attempting to study cryptography. If the world will degrade to fascism, I want to have some weapons under my pillow, the digital equivalents of Desert Eagle and surface-to-air missile. And this is also the reason why I study both the attack and defense systems. China is deploying system for Net-wide monitoring of the citizens, so called Golden Shield - a hierarchical system of censorware and monitoring. This will be tough to beat, but still not impossible. Si vis pacem para bellum.

	As Bob Dole Once Said... (none / 0) (#163)
	by doofus on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:34:19 PM PST

	You don't think the Net is only The Web, do you? during his presidential campaign when asked what he thought of the internet: "The internet is a good tool to get on the net." You seem like a fine, upstanding citizen (if a bit impressionable) and you are certainly well-meaning, but any fool can tell you the internet is only the Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows-compatible web sites AOL/Time Warner wants to direct you to. Any other part of the so-called "internet" is a raging cesspool of anarchy, containing only "warez" used to electronically trespass and stolen music in mp3 format. Now, go change your AOL screen name before one of the right-thinking members of adequacy.org reports you to the Australian Internet Police.

	People say things... (none / 0) (#223)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:38:50 PM PST

	...but any fool* can tell you the internet is only the Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows-compatible web sites AOL/Time Warner wants to direct you to.* What any non-fool would tell you could be more interesting. Fools believe whatever they are told. Any other part of the so-called "internet" is a raging cesspool of anarchy, containing only "warez" used to electronically trespass and stolen music in mp3 format. Better than cold, sterile, artificially happy, plastic-looking (or even tasting) and officially licensed. Now, go change your AOL screen name AOL isn't here. Hope it will stay this way for long time. before one of the right-thinking members of adequacy.org reports you to the Australian Internet Police. Go on. I don't think their jurisdiction reaches to East Europe.

	lawn-mowing (none / 0) (#273)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 05:28:40 AM PST

	umm... how are u going to stop me ? what if i AM an ISP and i refuse to comply with an orwellian like internet ? what will you do ?

	You a comedian? (none / 0) (#34)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:11:10 PM PST

	heheh cuz you are joking right? what is an opensource computer? Oh yes that will be OpenSource Corperation which have close ties with the MickeyMouse Corperation who also make computers. "The pad for the day would have to be mirrored in insecure plaintext on a web site so you could sync up in the first place." heh well I, Mr Hacker, now know where to get MY pad for each day. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	You can never be completley secure (none / 0) (#136)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:17:15 AM PST

	Once people get that into their heads , then they can start thinking of ways to secure against the attacks that are going to happens sooner or later. Even if you had cameras in everyones home.. "Hackers" (as you call them) would still find a way. It's been proven countless times, whenever something is made better, something is patches,fixed, more secure ( un hackable as some say) the hacking community always wins through, always finds another way around. You cant stop that by making stronger encrytpion, sure you can slow hackers down, but not stop them

	But (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:57:14 PM PST

	This is a good idea for lazy parents. Parents that don't have time to spend with their kids or explain to them what is right/wrong. And whos to say what is right and what is wrong? That is up to each individual person. Say I hate asparagus so I want to see nothing having to do with asparagus on the internet. I'm sure lots of people like asparagus, so it wouldn't be fair to them now would it? And just a reminder, the internet was developed with tax payers money, therefore is a right.

	Good idea in theory, but... (none / 0) (#23)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:22:03 PM PST

	While I entirely agree with your assessment of the insidious hacker threat and your argument for the necessity for licenses, your proposal falls short in a few key respects. These failings fall into three categories: technical impossibility, Constitutional issues, and a failure to address other problems with the internet. First, I shall elaborate on the shortcomings I have diagnosed: Technical Impossibility: In asking government officials to implement new Internet security features in arcane operating systems like BeOS and BSD, we are demanding too much of our notoriously mediocre government officials. Similarly, how can regulatory agencies keep up with the countless versions of browsers released every year? In short, the technical complexity of the proposal is simply unmanagable. Constitutional Issues: While I believe that any court challenge to a license law would ultimately fail (Strict Contortionists like Justice Scalia will note that our Founding Fathers never intended freedom of speech or assembly to apply to the Internet), the law could languish in court for years before our notoriously inefficient legal system resolves the question. And time is of the essence. Unaddressed Problems with the Internet: One of the most debilitating things a hacker can do is write a virus, or "worm," like the "ILOVEU" or "Goner" virii; I see nothing in your proposal, save the age restriction, that would make the slightest dent in this pandemic. Similarly, you propose to allow still-malleable 14-year-olds to access the Internet without mandatory content filtering, which seems foolish. Lastly, your proposal does not address the vital issue of the many internet sites that are factually incorrect or obscene. Yet I believe each of these issues can be elegantly resolved within the paradigm you have already outlined: Resolving Technical Issues: Eliminate the pointless complexity! Restrict Internet-approved Operating Systems and browsers to those that have more than 5% market share. Approved Operating Systems browsers would clearly need to be thorougly audited by the NSA before release, so we would likely have to restrict the development of new versions to once every few years. Resolving Constitutional Issues: Pass a Constitutional amendment clarifying the free-speech status of the Internet--and quickly! Resolving Unaddressed Problems: To stop virii writers and hackers, we must restrict the availability of potentially malicious tools such as debuggers and compilers to those with Computer Science degrees from accredited institutions. And we must also implement a similar license for content providers, ensuring that their websites are morally acceptable. In my view, the most logical license system would be a two-tiered plan, with one license allowing one to use any approved Operating System and browser to access the Internet. The other license would allow one to provide content. This would stop the pornographers and liars dead in their despicable tracks. Nevertheless, I believe your proposal has substantial merit as a starting-point for debate. My suggested alterations would, I think, be the starting point of an even better plan for solving the threat of computer crime, as well as being a major step towards transforming the Internet into its Platonic ideal. What do others of the Adequacy community think of these proposed revisions?

	Your ideas are flawed. (none / 0) (#49)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:58:29 PM PST

	You want to prevent people developing new Operating systems? because until they have sold enough to make 5% they are illegal right? Stifling development. Also shouldnt you also ban programs too? just as dangerous. Banning the programs created by unprofessional authors would destroy many of the programs the internet has produced. Constitutional Issues: you mention the founding fathers never meant it to apply to the internet. Other western countries do apply human rights of free speach to the internet. What you gonna do, declare war on the world? The internet is worldwide - US laws are not. Therefore logic tells you that US law cant enforce the internet. You can write viruses in notepad and any other text editor. So give up this regulation thing - its futile. "To stop virii writers and hackers, we must restrict the availability of potentially malicious tools such as debuggers and compilers to those with Computer Science degrees" Ahh like me - I take computer science and im a hacker too :) so that works. Yes, restrict those unprofessional moral people from learning programming! And BAN notepad - that awful virus editing tool invented by microsoft! also ban microsoft word. ANd excel can contain macro viruses so that would have to be banned too. Also ban ActiveX as microsoft left a gaping hole in the certificate security on that one. Hell, just ban microsoft as supporters of hacking. hmm how you gonna ban me in europe from putting up a warez site? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Baseless Objections. (none / 0) (#53)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:17:27 PM PST

	Banning the programs created by unprofessional authors would destroy many of the programs the internet has produced. But this is very much my intention! Do we really need these programs, many of which are quite malicious? Software is rapidly becoming a mature art, and current useful software programs, like Word and Excel, are far too complex for individual hackers to make a meaningful contribution, anyway. Ahh like me - I take computer science and im a hacker too :) so that works. Perhaps your institution is not prestigous enough. Certainly your repeated mispellings, poor grammer, and mangled syntax indicate as such! Regardless, I am sure that if we impose sanctions on universities that without teaching their students proper ethics, they will wise up and more carefully scrutinize their applicants. Other western countries do apply human rights of free speach to the internet. What you gonna do, declare war on the world? [snip] hmm how you gonna ban me in europe from putting up a warez site? We certainly are lacking in creativity today, aren't we? Unless you get a license, your IP will not be listed with the United States DNS servers. Approved browsers would, obviously, be required to use this DNS server. I continue to maintain that my proposal is a reasonable one, at least in its general outlines.

	No way. (none / 0) (#63)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:06:17 PM PST

	...they will wise up and more carefully scrutinize their applicants. Or the applicants will learn to lie. Unless you get a license, your IP will not be listed with the United States DNS servers. Approved browsers would, obviously, be required to use this DNS server. ...and in two hours from putting the first beta of approved browser on the market, a crack allowing alternative DNS hierarchies will appear. Then you will come with DNS request filtering on the borders. Within few more hours after deploying the filters, a rogue protocol for DNS request tunneling over an "approved" protocol appears. Cat and mouse game with way too many mouses.[1] I continue to maintain that my proposal is a reasonable one, at least in its general outlines. I continue to maintain that your proposal is futile and full of implementation holes and that anyone with basic skills can run around it in circles. [1] ...a vision of mouses feeding on dead cat corpse comes to mind.

	sigh... (none / 0) (#64)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:21:31 PM PST

	two hours from putting the first beta of approved browser on the market, a crack allowing alternative DNS hierarchies will appear. Which is why it is incredibly vital to ban potential hacker tools like compilers and debuggers. The alternative, I think, is even more widespread and debilitating hacking incidents.

	*yawn* (none / 0) (#77)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:29:56 PM PST

	Which is why it is incredibly vital to ban potential hacker tools like compilers and debuggers. The alternative, I think, is even more widespread and debilitating hacking incidents. They have to be somewhere. Someone has to guard them. Physical security isn't absolute.[1] There are people that can be bribed.[2] The price of a blackmarket item is determined by supply and demand.[3] You make something unobtainable, and if there will be enough demand, someone will take the risk and bribe someone with access. Or get the physical machine stolen for request.[4] The ones who want the devices will get the devices. The potential hidden in compilers and debuggers is way way too high, and the need of them is way too high as well. Wide distribution vs large need ensures it will get out. Look at drug market. Look how much of transports gets seized. It's estimated to be far less than half, despite of all the money invested to War on Drugs. Software can be hidden better than physical stuff, and doesn't smell - so xrays nor dogs will be of any help. Hey - you can smuggle at least a meg of data in a FlashEPROM of a cellphone, and the cellphone is still basically functional. You can also make a music CD with steganography-encoded data[5], and even get it to print in 10,000s+ copies - and when they get sold, leak the information how to get the data. [1] So the machine can "get acquired", together with the disks with The Software. [2] Hey! Even nuclear secrets were sold. [3] There will be large demand for "the gadgets". Because software can be copied, older versions of the compilers will drop in price as their availability will get wider. Once a piece of software gets on black market, you can't recall it. A single copy that slips between your fingers, and you lost the battle. [4] There are gangs of luxury car thieves that operate on the basis of being hired for a given type of car ("get me a Toyota"). No reason why there couldn't be gangs specialized for computers with valuable data. Never underestimate physical security of the facilities. [5] I developed it independently for exactly this purpose, back about 7-8 years ago (after reading an article in newspapers, that US senators ponder limiting encryption), but called it "noise-level encoding" or "LSB-encoding". It was plagued by problems characteristical for early implementations, but the only reason I hadn't developed it further was that I got my hands on real steganography tools and abandoned the project. But you can get as much as over 70 megabytes of compressed data into a single audio CD, and it will still sound practically the same. (Maybe some difference with symphonic music, but sure to be hidden in rap or trash-metal (at least those sounds would be good for something).)

	completely irrelevant (none / 0) (#83)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:03:31 PM PST

	Please stop wasting your breath and testing our patience with unreasonable sophistry. We cannot prevent murder, either, yet we make it illegal just the same, and live safer, more fulfilling lives for having adopted an effective legal policy instituting sane moral principles. As soon as your hacker genius understand this, you will understand the quite analoguous reasons why hacking tools must and therefore will be strictly enforced in civil society. We thank you for your formidable insight that crime will always possible, but you must stop trying to convince us that the set of possible things (ever remotely possible as time goes by) is the same as the set of desirable, officially sanctioned outcomes. Please think rigorously and stop insulting our intelligence with windy foolishness. Naturally you are free to take your chances while we sleep more comfortably knowing your numbers diminish with every judgement and every prison term. Do you feel lucky, hacker?

	your wrong because hacker tools are legal tools (none / 0) (#118)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:47:17 AM PST

	"hacking tools must and therefore will be strictly enforced in civil society." You obviously dont know what hackers use as tools. Well the best tools for cracking Windows NT or Novell Networks are actually the NT and Novell network management programs are distributed with both. Another great hacker tool used is telnet - which is also critical for businesses and colleges to transfer data to and from remote computers. Ping and Traceroute are commonly pointed out as hacker tools. True but network administrators and anyone else who wants to maintain their home network needs these tools. Encryption software maybe used by hackers and criminals but lets face it businesses need it too. As for compilers and debuggers being hacking tools - every programmer needs these, hacker or not. Notepad - distributed in windows to read text files. Can also be used by hackers. So you see, you cant ban hacker software because they use the same stuff as everyone else. As for portscan.exe - well any decent hacker would probably make it themselves using the unbanable compiler and debugger. You cant ban programs for what they could do, only if they are used in malicious ways. Otherwise windows should be illegal because it has the potential to crash millions of peoples computers. Your argument about banning 'hacker software' is like saying an axe is a murdering tool so make it illegal. So much for woodcutting. I dont even know if you know the definition of hacker. The dictionary sure doesnt. There are many different levels and types of hacker. Some malicious and criminal but most arent. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Shocking technical ignorance (none / 0) (#144)
	by moriveth on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:19:23 AM PST

	This is the funniest thing I've read in ages! I'm no "computer whiz," yet even I can see the technical flaws and logical errors in your suggestions. Another great hacker tool used is telnet - which is also critical for businesses and colleges to transfer data to and from remote computers. How, exactly, do you propose to use telnet to transfer data? I think you mean FTP or WWW! Encryption software maybe used by hackers and criminals but lets face it businesses need it too. Clearly you have never heard of the proposals for encryption "backdoors" that allow the government to find the criminals while protecting citizens and businesses. Notepad - distributed in windows to read text files. Can also be used by hackers. I see what you're trying to do, you sneaky devil! But I won't fall into your trap. Clearly there is no need to ban Notepad, unlike some of the hacking tools mentioned above. After all, how can you commit a computer crime with a word processor? You cant ban programs for what they could do, only if they are used in malicious ways. Otherwise windows should be illegal because it has the potential to crash millions of peoples computers. Let me get this straight. You're apparently aruging the following: Proposition: "You cant ban programs for what they could do." This is true because, if one does attempt to "ban programs for what they could do", "windows should be illegal because it has the potential to crash millions of peoples computers." Yet clearly this does not follow. Did you, perhaps, neglect to take a logic course in college? Clearly, an operating system that crashes frequently hinders the insidious efforts of hackers. Not that I am advocating the widespread adoption of MacOS 8 and Netscape!

	just misunderstanding (none / 0) (#149)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:37:02 AM PST

	When I said telnet I was talking about the program not the protocol. Many telnet programs now come with file sharing ability (using FTP) and have been adopted by many Universities and Businesses for that purpose. What I am saying is you cant ban telnet for being a hacking tool if it is so widely used in everyday life. Anyway lets take SSH instead of Telnet if it bothers you. Businesses and universities also use SSH to transfer encrypted data. So do hackers and criminals. Cant ban it. As for notepad: If you are using IE go to view, full source. You get the HTML source for this entire page in notepad. Some commercial sites stupidly put the price values for products in the HTML code. This allows a hacker to simply change the values and get the products for cheaper as often the transaction is an automatic process and noone checks it. There are many other ways that insecure sites can be hacked in notepad such as editting out password features and editting VBScript and Java source code. Notepad can also be used to view EXE files in base 256. Not entirely useful but in the absense of a proper disassembler, you can find its DLL dependancies and view any strings contained in the EXE iteself. This is still hacking. But of course you can also use notepad legitimately. Double usage. Thats your answer. So many programs have double uses. Programs like ICQ and MSN messenger and Outlook Express can be used by hackers to infect others computers with trojans...although the FBI is into doing this too. There are no such things as encryption backdoors - any encryption with a back door is insecure and isnt used. Only known, secure encryptions are used such as DES and RSA. It is all tested mathematically and the encryption algorithms are released to the public - any backdoor created for the authorities would be blatently obvious. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you moron (none / 0) (#116)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:28:35 AM PST

	people would make their own compilers if it became necessary - would take time but there would be plenty of it. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Syntax, Ignorance...and a word of advice (none / 0) (#98)
	by sertorius on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 12:03:51 AM PST

	In reference to a number of comments put forward in your reply. Firstly, as a published author myself, I would be forced to say that if anyone is in need of some education concerning the use of syntax it would be your good self, if the content and subsequent punctuation of your words are any indication. Secondly, I fail to see to what you intend to achieve in the voicing of such comments apart from a display of your own unfounded arrogance and ignorance. Appearances are only apparent to the fool who takes note of them. Thirdly, any individual who engages in the activity of dismissing the validity of another's opinion based on such derisory reasoning is more often than not doing so in order to deflect attention from the true nature of the debate. It is in effect nothing more than an action based in fear, and more salient still, the inability to form a suitable refute. Forthly, if you wish to portray yourself in the light that you are obviously striving so mightly to create, then be aware that you are not the only inhabitant of this planet in possesion of a modicum of intelligence. And lastly, I hope you take note of the abysmal spelling and writing style which I have aped in my reply...does it look familiar?

	the flaw with your system (none / 0) (#120)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:49:26 AM PST

	"Do we really need these programs" You mean the cheap programs like winzip? and countless smalltime games written by lone programmers? and what about game mods and editors and suchlike which are often legally made by lone programmers. Okay we have highschool computer student learning programming. So he isnt allowed to practice and learn at home then? because compilers and debuggers are illegal for home use. The same must also be true for any level of computer education. Many people would like to continue their work at home - are you saying that they would no longer be able to do so in your world? Remember if you give a compiler and debugger to just one student who decides to distribute it online then your whole utopia collapses. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	An NSA approved OS? (none / 0) (#159)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:06:46 PM PST

	Great, I'll use NSA's SELinux! http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

	What you propose is FACISM - go live in CHINA!!!! (none / 0) (#31)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:03:07 PM PST

	If you want the state controlled internet feel then go to China my friend. Sites are filtered out and the "uneducated" are denied access. China is your dream. The difference between the internet and all those above things you mentioned is that the internet is a communication medium. Do you have telephone licenses over there? Licenses to free speach? Licences to buy and read books? Because these are the closest matches to the internet. Dont get me wrong, I understand that you think there is a problem and you have a great answer for that problem. But there is no real problem. The internet is secure and intact. Its just a network of people trading information and ideas. Any problems merely reflect the inperfections of humanity and differences between societies. If there is going to be regulation then who sets the standard? I mean we could also ban other offensive material on the internet. The bible and koran can promote fundementalism and terrorism. Pornography cant do shit. I dont know how you intend to shut down porn sites hosted in Russia - again, maybe you intend to imprison your citizens behind a filtering system so they can only access what you want - like in China. Also should we ban free speach on the internet and make every forum, such as this one state censored? The internet is free and uncensored - that is the whole point of it. Destroying those two values destroys the internet. If you cant handle it then dont use it. Go to www.cyberarmy.com - theres a whole 50,000 people who actively oppose any form of internet regulation. Its also a hacker training camp too I believe. Not based in afghanistan though ;) most of its members are American. You forget that the US isnt the only country in the world. Web sites will just be hosted in other countries outside US law and these countries will florish as the US portion of the internet collapses. You may intend to introduce minor censorship using special hardware and protocols but the problem is that eventually your government will hi-jack the system to impose even tougher and out of order regulations and stop you from seeing what they dont want you to see - its been done before on TV and the internet stopped that practice - dont give the government back a foothold. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	question for you (none / 0) (#33)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:07:36 PM PST

	How does it feel to be a liberal? --philipm

	answer for you (none / 0) (#41)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:31:04 PM PST

	So you arent a liberal. Neither am I. Freedom of speach: Freedom of the Internet. Im not afraid of regulation because I wont allow it. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Liberal? Err, you're strongly mistaken. (none / 0) (#94)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:31:41 PM PST

	Why not listen to popular conservative radio personalities. Michael Savage (who broadcasts out of KSFO) is a notable and very sensible example. This is SOCIALISM, this proposal. It's not conservaitism, it's liberalism at it's finest. But hey, anything so that you can feel the children are safe, right?

	maybe in china I would be mistaken (none / 0) (#171)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:36:14 PM PST

	I hate to burst your bubble, but you are using the socialist definition of liberal. My children are safe. --philipm

	Autism? (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:41:13 PM PST

	Why is autism on your list of "dangerous" things on the internet?

	Hint: only a hacking geek would ask that question. (none / 0) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:39:02 PM PST

	Give up? Hackers (self induced autism) wont be allowed on the new regulated Internet.

	who? (none / 0) (#70)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:39:15 PM PST

	And who will regulate this new Internet? That's the beauty of the Internet. It's DECENTRALIZED/ Politicians can't even figure out the difference between the web and the Internet. Hell most of them can't seem to figure out that America does not own the Internet. America doesn't have any real control over the Internet. Niether does any one country for that matter. Iseriously doubt you will see this go very far. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	talking to yourself again, are you? (none / 0) (#74)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:16:33 PM PST

	And who will regulate this new Internet? Hard working family people in the employ of generous corporate America under the financial oversight of AOL and the legitimate political stewardship of the one true People's party, the GOP. As marginalized visitors to our communities, this will be the hacker's cause for some concern. Their anxiety is duly noted but the natural and inevitable outcome of historical forces will remain indifferent to the misplaced melodrama playing out in the hacker imagination like so much artless anime. I'm sorry but ever since Sept. 11 it has become clear that the less time we waste watching our feeble opposition diddle themselves, the better. That's the beauty of the Internet. It's DECENTRALIZED/ I'm sorry, we were talking about the new Internet, remember?

	try reading it (none / 0) (#92)
	by KingTT on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:14:26 PM PST

	What he meant is that the internet is at the point where you can't simply shut it down, clean it out and only let "responsible" people on. No one computer makes up the internet so shutting down the internet would be shutting down every server. P.S. AOL has sold customer information to other companies before. <tangent> IMHO it is good for only one thing and that is the huge database of old Hypercard shareware (like Mike Pullins' RPGs, if you have Hypercard and AOL check them out)</tangent>

	try learning something about the Internet (none / 0) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 12:33:51 AM PST

	It depends on backbone connectivity. Ten years ago that backbone was controlled by the National Science Foundation. The NSF is a government regulatory body. Five years from now it will be controlled by AOL. AOL is a regulatory body for Compassionate Conservative Government. See, unless you deny the Internet's past, there can be nothing unusual or objectionable about the new Internet's proposed future. It's just a case of "what goes around, comes around." Furthermore, when you connect to the internet, you connect to an ISP who has purchased connectivity from a backbone provider. You connect to the Internet through that ISPs terminal servers. If those terminal servers were regulated equipment, they would solicit cryptographic tokens uniquely identifying every computer, its logged on user and her Internet Class. IPv6 routers do the rest. We've had the technology for the longest while. Now we have the political will.

	sorry (none / 0) (#106)
	by NAWL on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:17:45 AM PST

	Sorry to burst you bubble but that's not entirely true. Back in 1979 there was a meeting between Univ of Wisconsin,Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and computer scientists from many universities to establish a Computer Science Department research computer network (organized by Larry Landweber). Basically they were charged with creating an Internet backbone, NSFNET was basically a large network that became the backbone with a speed of 56Kbps. AOL is plain and simply an Internet Service Provider. Yeah AOL has a backbone. Of course so does every LAN, MAN, and WAN. AOL is NOT an Internet Backbone Operator. vBNS, CA* NET are examples of backbone operators. A good resource would be An Atlas of Cyberspaces by Martin Dodge & Rob Kitchin. Besides, if something like this ever were to happen, fine. You guys can have the Internet. Well, just move our happy asses over to Internet2. :-) Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	It's not so simple. (none / 0) (#107)
	by tkatchev on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:37:15 AM PST

	The problem is that each city and country has their own backbone. So, for example, if Russia decided to cut off the Russian backbone from the rest of the world, 90% of the Russian internet audience wouldn't even notice. Same with the American and European backbones. The best you can hope for is fragmentation of the internet into country-wide networks; this wouldn't stop rouge states (like France and Germany, the home of the Nazi party) from doing god knows what un-American and immoral things on their own backbones. -- Peace and much love...

	A really good idea (none / 0) (#110)
	by NAWL on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:57:54 AM PST

	So, for example, if Russia decided to cut off the Russian backbone from the rest of the world, 90% of the Russian internet audience wouldn't even notice. Same with the American and European backbones. Depends what you mean by the Internet audience. If you are referring to Joe Schmo who gets on the surfs the web, sends email and downloads porn, then yeah. If you are talking about interneational corporations, goverment organizations, research facilities, then no, They would notice. Also every country may have its own backbone but those backbones come together to make the Internet backbone. Check this post for more information and links. My thing is this. Why not build a completely NEW network? Get rid of a the services and bullshit you don't need. You don't need the entire Internet. Most of the average Joes no about nothing more than the world wide web. I know it sounds insane but so are the suggestions in the article. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Widen your thought spectrum a bit... (none / 0) (#177)
	by budlite on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:15:51 PM PST

	Just one MINOR point - America isn't the only country with internet access. One of the things I'd hate would be for my own internet connection to be controlled by a government who rule a block of land thousands of miles away from where I live that grew up from a small colonisation (or rather, invasion) by people from my own country. America isn't the world, people. Just bear that in mind.

	no (none / 0) (#73)
	by KingTT on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:01:23 PM PST

	if you are trying to label everyone with autism as "dangerous"... that is just ignorant.

	ummm, no (none / 0) (#169)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:32:11 PM PST

	If ignorant smelly people have bad opinions then do smelly people have bad opinions? Statistics say smelly people have bad opinions. --philipm

	Ahaha.....oh my (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:36:02 PM PST

	While we're at it, why don't we get locked into metal alloy cages, have our homes searched without a warrant, and get our first amendmant taken away. The internet was made to share information. Sure, some bad apples choose to share information about bombs and hate. But to regulate the internet would be to take away its whole purpose. It was created as a defense project by DARPA, however scientists began using it to share IDEAS. Most of these were just plain ol theories. However, now many things have changed and topics from Osama Bin Laden to stem cell research are being debated upon. And by having the government, decide what we can't and can't say.....well um gee why don't you take the next plane to Cuba. They'll help ya out there. You my friend must live a cold and desolate life, with no excitement or radical thoughts. Misinformation is there for your entertainment. Porn, for adults. Extreme politic lunatics? You sound like an arrogant hic from Alabama. Perhaps you should change your title to Adequacy.org... News for stuck up self righeous zealots who believe in facist ditatorships. Exaggeration? I hardly think so. Whatever you have to say here the rest of the intellectual world (you know the non control freaks who might actually have a life) will simply not care. Parents or not, you sound pitiful. Like a pack of indignant soccer moms....... -Demonbytez demon_bytez@hotmail.com

	What's DARPA? (none / 0) (#68)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:35:01 PM PST

	What the hell is DARPA? I know what ARPA is. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) within the Department of Defense (DoD). Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	DARPA: (none / 0) (#168)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:13:26 PM PST

	Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - Federal agency that conducts research for the Defense Department. It began as ARPA but became so dominated with defense work its name was changed. Work funded by DARPA led to the creation of the Internet. Decommissioned in 1990, it became ARPA once again. An agency of the US Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military. ARPA was its original name, then it was known as DARPA (for Defense) and now it is ARPA again. It was responsible for funding development of ARPANET (which grew into the Internet), the Berkeley version of Unix and TCP/IP. Home (http://www.arpa.mil/)

	oh (none / 0) (#178)
	by NAWL on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:10:48 PM PST

	I've just always remembered it as ARPA. Not to mention that I've come across so many posts twist of the the acronyms it's sometimes difficult to get it straight. I've seen it as TARP, PARA, DDARPA. All I really have to say for myself is, duh... Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Stunning commercialism at work in this author. (none / 0) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:39:02 PM PST

	Let's start with some basic ideas of property. This idea of using so called quote-unquote (uneducated person speaking to follow) "net-unfriendly" operating systems (end unedcuated text) has got to be squelched. Any computer I own is my property. I bought it, it's mine. I'm not loaning it, I'm not renting it, I'm OWNING. This means, I can run any operating system I please, just like I can own any furniture I please. It's MY HOUSE. The idea of restricting someone to one type of operating system immediatly makes me think you're a shareholder in major companies who would benefit, because that is the ONLY way this makes sense. The very concept of "net-unfriendly," considering that linux, AIX, and BSD machines power most of the 'net, seems rather suspect to me. As for the concept of the internet needing regulation, the analogy of a highway is so tired, and beat up. STOP BEATING THAT HORSE TO DEATH. The internet's regulation is an issue that has to be approached VERY carefully and with a lot of thought. Just throwing out liscenses like this would only serve commercial entities, would not help in any form of regulation, and would greatly hamper the freedom of an already endangered internet. You sit here on a moral high horse and dictate to the world what is correct to be able to see, and what is not. Perhaps you should just stop holding back and shout, "Think of the children!" Obviously, this article was based around that mode of thought. My response to that is simple. The internet is a huge pool of information to be USED RESPONSIBLY. Your computer is not an appliance, like your TV. You need to actually think just a bit to use it. So get off your duff and read a book or two, and stop trying to act like you should be able to just let your computer substitute for a good parenting job. Some of us responsible, adult users, happen to LIKE pornography. You may not want to admit it, but quite frankly the majority is on the side of the continued existance of such things. Child pornography is a different issue. It's illegal, and it's chased quite well, under it's definition. Your little dreamy liscense scheme wouldn't solve it though, since most child pornography is posted in countries where it isn't illegal or isn't a serious offense. Not America. As for the illegal trading of copyrighted goods, the RIAA and MPAA are doing what they can to fix it by attacking offenders individually. They really don't need your help, nor should they be granted it. By the way, limiting the development of software as a potentially dangerous act is ludicrous. If you feel like destroying the software industry, reducing it to a burned out husk which turns out the occasional bland and useless Microsoft product with no regard for what people actually need, and costing about 10 times more (oh, and being rented by the year, thanks .NET) then sure, stop people from developing free and shareware software. So, dmg, why don't you try thinking a bit more carefully about well established property rights, the rights of parents, and the well-being of a huge market of software before you open your mouth with stupid, tedious, and somewhat disturbing ideas. I'm sure I'll have nightmares about your idea for weeks. - Dave "paradox" Fayram

	sir, you are too clever by half (none / 0) (#90)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:51:10 PM PST

	Let's start with some basic ideas of property. No problem. Everything you own you own in our country. Our country protects your property and regulates what you acquire and how you dispose of your acquisitions according to our laws. If you disagree with our laws, you become the shared property of hardened, albeit affectionate, felons. Hope that helps, citizen.

	Property rights, historically. (none / 0) (#93)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:28:48 PM PST

	Err, historically, and in precedent by law, this ISN'T the way it works. So long as you acquire it legally, it's yours to do with as you please, within limits you acquired it under. That's the way people have ruled, the way precedent has fallen, and in fact, the way philosophers say property is defined. Now, for you to LOCK someone into running any given operating system because the potential for wrongdoing is there is ridiculous at best. Besides the fact that anyone could, in the privacy of their home, unbeknownst to the law, create an OS to do anything the computer could do, as it stands ANY OS is equally (god I love the humor of this) "net-unfriendly." To wax technical, it's EASIER for people to use windows XP (home version) boxes to perform common attacks, than it is for most administrated public linux/BSD boxes! (for those of you who care to know, the raw socket security permissions on windows XP home are atrocious at best, and virii and macro virii will take advantage of that). So, not only is this pathetic little plan impossible to enforce (short of a computer gestapo conducting spot raids) but it is largely useless. As long as we are in a country of LAW and legal precedent, the concept of private property will remain inviolate. When you and your little socialist friends take over, then you can take things from me legally and dictate what kind of pictures I can look at, what OS I run and if I develop products for a free market or not.

	you are simply wrong on every count (none / 0) (#99)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 12:16:08 AM PST

	That's the way people have ruled, the way precedent has fallen, and in fact, the way philosophers say property is defined. First, do not pretend to possess any unusual insight into property rights. Property rights are what we make of them and I dont particularly care what the most coherent philosopher of property, Karl Marx, might have told you in a dream. Now, for you to LOCK someone into running any given operating system because the potential for wrongdoing is there is ridiculous at best. This must be why your qualifications to drive a car arent a license to drive a tank or a tractor trailer. as it stands ANY OS is equally (god I love the humor of this) "net-unfriendly." This is untrue in the case of many operating systems before and after MS-DOS, and therefore it is trivially untrue as a general statement. Fact is, unless roll net connectivity into an OS you write by your lonesome, and unless you can further spoof the cryptographic controls regulating access on the proposed new Internet, you will have to content yourself with a legal OS, one sanctioned and licensed by the State to expose a tight range of net functionality. It is technically easier for you to mount a canon to the family station wagon than it will be to circumvent digital, factory set restrictions. Personally, I do not live in fear of canon firing station wagons. So, not only is this pathetic little plan impossible to enforce (short of a computer gestapo conducting spot raids) but it is largely useless. No, you are simply wrong. Spend more time learning cryptography and less time fantasizing about jack-booted thugs lurking in the shadows of your uncivic imagination. As long as we are in a country of LAW and legal precedent, the concept of private property will remain inviolate. Private property is NOT inviolate. It never has been under any system of law. The proposition that you will be allowed to communicate over the internet without restriction is no less absurd than the proposition that you can purchase unapproved broadcast equipment and start your own pornography channel.

	How about you acquire a little knowledge here? (none / 0) (#145)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:23:56 AM PST

	First, do not pretend to possess any unusual insight into property rights. Property rights are what we make of them and I dont particularly care what the most coherent philosopher of property, Karl Marx, might have told you in a dream. No, personally I like more western concepts. Of course, not like you'd know. You really shouldn't pretend to know things you don't, my socialist friend. This must be why your qualifications to drive a car arent a license to drive a tank or a tractor trailer. Aha, yet another crappy example from left field! It's perfectly legal to drive whatever you want on your own property, has been forever in this country. I learned to drive a tractor at age 8, a car at 9, all on the comfort of the ranch. So, my friend, you need to rethink this one. So, if it's legal for me to own an operating system OFF the 'net. How exactly are you going to stop me from running it on the net? I'm quite well educated in cryptography, having participated in more research projects than you have fingers ( I hope ) on the subject. Think I'm wrong, let me give you an eqivalent problem the MPAA ran into. MPAA says, "We have videos that we want to be able to play, but we don't want anyone to be able to copy them without our players, so we will encrypt them and put the keys in our players." The real world says, "That's bullshit, we'll take your keys off the players we bought and use the data as we see fit. Unless we somehow violate copyright or trademark law, you can't really do anything about it." The MPAA of course wants the answer to be the DMCA. Sigh. This is not a discussion about the DMCA however. Cryptographically, this problem you seem to want to deal with CANNOT be solved. Somewhere on your little communist-mandated """"net-friendly"""" operating system you will find the keys to get on the network, or the way to get at them. I may have to by a logic analyzer to get at them. Maybe you should make a liscense for those, too! Socialist. This is untrue in the case of many operating systems before and after MS-DOS, and therefore it is trivially untrue as a general statement. Fact is, unless roll net connectivity into an OS you write by your lonesome, and unless you can further spoof the cryptographic controls regulating access on the proposed new Internet, you will have to content yourself with a legal OS, one sanctioned and licensed by the State to expose a tight range of net functionality. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. As I said above, the MPAA tried this, but it's not based on any mathematically sound methods, just hoping and the DMCA to deter. It doesn't work. While you're out there banning logic analyzers, why not also make volt meters and wire restricted items too! Hey, terrorists use wire, right? I feel bad for you. You're at the point to know a few things, but not far enough along to realize how much you don't know. Ask any real cryptographer how you would do this. Know what they'd say? "You cannot." Feel free. Alan Konnheim is a good one. Adi Shamir is another. Go for it, don't trust a random on the internet. Ask famous names out there, people who've won the respect and accreditation of their peers in a public forum. Oh wait, you doing that would burst your little bubble, so you won't. Alan Konnheim does answer public emails, I should know. It is technically easier for you to mount a canon to the family station wagon than it will be to circumvent digital, factory set restrictions. Personally, I do not live in fear of canon firing station wagons. No, because anyone can fabricate a set of bits in their head. Few people can do that with a cannon. You honestly don't know ANYTHING real about cryptography, do you? It isn't the job of cryptography to do things like this. Cryptography's job is to keep a secret between parties. That's it. This idea has been modified to work in dozens of fabulous ways, but there is one simple limitation. To use a secret, I have to know it. There is no way around that. There never will be a way around it. No, you are simply wrong. Spend more time learning cryptography and less time fantasizing about jack-booted thugs lurking in the shadows of your uncivic imagination. Take your own advice. As a beginners book, I recommend Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography". It's available at Amazon. I hope you have your class B lisence to buy it. They may reserve the right to vend to socialists, until you and your ilk make it illegal to do so for them. The book has a lot of references to papers written over the last 10 years. You should be able to catch up on modern cryptography by starting there and going where the references section leads you. Private property is NOT inviolate. It never has been under any system of law. The proposition that you will be allowed to communicate over the internet without restriction is no less absurd than the proposition that you can purchase unapproved broadcast equipment and start your own pornography channel. Err, I hate to point this out, but it isn't illegal for me to make such a thing. The range is limited, but I could easily go out to your town, right off your property, and override all your local tv and radio stations with pictures of any popular porn star. As long as the range is low, the FCC doesn't regulate it. Your town would have to have a law, which they won't, because it wouldn't hold up in court. Besides, the government is NOT in control of the internet. In fact, largely, the internet is a private affair these days. If the US government pulled out every dollar, the 'net would still continue to exist. This is the case throughout much of the civilized world. Only in 3rd world countries with 'net access is this the case. So really, the government has little to say about it. If you begin to yammer about inter-state commerce, just remember that's trivial to get around. I fail to see how people who advocate the increase in government control over the people are labeled as conservative. This idea, of making people fill out scripts of paper and pay government fees, is ludicrous. I'm glad people like me exist, to cancel out votes from socialist extremeists like you. You still haven't told me to think of the children yet, isn't it about time you do that?

	it's like arguing with a Lunix user (none / 0) (#151)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:16:44 PM PST

	Aha, yet another crappy example from left field! It's perfectly legal to drive whatever you want on your own property, The internet, like the roads, are not your property. Hello? I dont care what you do with the network in your bedroom, but on the public Internet, you must think of the children. snip Sorry, my time is limited; I can only do you the service of correcting one logical error per post. Try to write shorter, error free treatises.

	What, you're wrong and can't admit it? (none / 0) (#184)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:25:49 PM PST

	Oh come now, do you really think the internet is public property? I hate to point this out, but it's NOT. Most of it is privatly owned. How can the government regulate it, especially if it doesn't cross state lines (which, if needs be, it can be restructured to do trivially. Think it won't happen? When ISP's and data transfer companies begin losing big bucks, they sure will.) But what I fail to see here, is how you think you can enforce any law like this. If I can run any OS in the privacy of my own home, and we've established that there isn't a secure cryptographic way to make sure I use any OS (feel free to find one, you'd make a ton of money), how do you plan to stop me? Internet gestapo again? It's so sad. You seem to think an attditude is all you need to be right. By the way, this eradication of pornography stuff is bullshit. Say what you like, but the porn industry is thriving, because people want it. The people who should "Think of the children" are the lame parents who don't supervise their children. You can't let a child watch TV unsupervised. Cable networks can show what they like, you know. Just the other day on primetime televsion, on CBS, I saw a very revealing shot of a woman naked. It wasn't sexually explicit, but I saw the nipples of a dead woman. On primetime? Why should the internet somehow be better than this? You wierd people who want to alleviate yourself of all responsibility depress me. Stand up, take responsibility for your own life, your own offspring, and your own property, and stop begging for an impersonal institution to come and solve all your problems because you're too lazy to get off your ass and do it yourself.

	all you need is a plot and you are fiction (none / 0) (#188)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:24:40 AM PST

	Oh come now, do you really think the internet is public property? That would explain the constant revision and creation of Internet legislation as well as its NSF origins. Try to insinuate lies and solecisms near the end of your posts instead of in the first dozen words. That way I'll read to the end. I realize hardware is privately held and, currently, unregulated, but the Internet is public. Similiarly, your private property sits firmly on a public nation, and is filled with public oxygen. The real world is full of subtle and squishy concepts whose words appear nowhere in the index of any O'Reilly book.

	That doesn't even make sense. (none / 0) (#257)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:49:56 AM PST

	You really need to work on your debate skills, friend. Please refrain from telling anyone what they can do with their private property anywhere near them, or you'll get soundly smacked. It's the very anonymity you are using right now that you are denouncing. Is it exhilarating? Socialists, hmmph. You're all alike. You're happy to take away everyone else's freedom for a temporary measure of security, even a false one. Benjamin Franklin would be sad.

	what? (none / 0) (#261)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:44:29 AM PST

	Please refrain from telling anyone what they can do with their private property Why? Society does this all the time. My libertarian friend, last I checked, the Libertarian party managed to elect a dog catcher. Someone who cannot recognize the most trivial facts is hardly qualified to judge a debate.

	Public is not the same thing as state (none / 0) (#272)
	by Mad Monk on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:50:21 AM PST

	I realize hardware is privately held and, currently, unregulated, but the Internet is public. Similiarly, your private property sits firmly on a public nation, and is filled with public oxygen. Should we have to own a licence to breathe "publically owned" oxygen? The real world is full of subtle and squishy concepts whose words appear nowhere in the index of any O'Reilly book. And this is one of them. The presumption of liberty is an important one. We do regulate pollution, and have laws against the more exploitative forms of pornography (where one of the parties isn't in a position to be able to consent, or production involves an illegal act). This seems proportional and sensible. It's worth noting that "communist" countries are reckoned (by western agencies) not to be able to withstand a greater than 20% penetration of telephony, and the authorities retain power; for the internet, this figure must be lower; telphones only involve one-to-one communication. How does China persist? Here's a clue: it doesn't; the government is being bent to the peoples' will, so it's having to adjust to capitalism and free choice in the market-place. Democracy is likely to follow in due course, for the rich will demand it, as democracy is more stable and moderate than single-party control.

	adult children scare me (none / 0) (#189)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:37:57 AM PST

	Say what you like, but the porn industry is thriving, because people want it. Say what you like, but public policy isnt the same as cheerleading for the perverted and immediate self-gratification of selfish individuals. Public policy is an exercise in critical thinking. Public policy means to do the right thing, not necessarily the dissolute and easy thing. That would be the same as doing nothing at all. Certainly hackers want to live in a world where they can do as they wish, but we already knew that hackers were ugly victims of the Peter Pan syndrome. I dont think institutionalizing the symptons of an abnormal psychological disorder is a substitute for sane social policy. We're trying to help you, here.

	Glad you can tell us, Supreme Socialist Lord! (none / 0) (#228)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:26:32 PM PST

	And after Boxer falls over from exhaustion, can we all go and be told how your equal opinion is so much more equal than everyone else's? People deserve to live in a world with essential freedoms. Essential freedoms don't always coincide with our worldviews. I'm sure there are people you'd like to silence for the "greater good." I feel the same way. Unlike you, I don't claim to be so superior I can mete out justice. I let God do that, and falling short of that, I try and let the established systems take their best stab. Come now, just because you don't like something DOESN'T mean you get to destroy it. If that were the case, you'd be a smoking pile of ash, rather than the recipient of a vaguely nasty letter.

	pure rhetoric (none / 0) (#243)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:50:33 PM PST

	Come now, just because you don't like something DOESN'T mean you get to destroy it. You make it sound as if it's impossible to determine right from wrong. Here's a clue: right and wrong have nothing to do with what I or you like. Communities always preserve themselves against infidels and common criminals. Hackers are common criminals by any rigorous definition (ie, not ESR's). This is why hackers are reported -- not "potrayed" -- as criminals in daily newspapers. Just like Osama bin Laden.

	Right and wrong? (none / 0) (#256)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:46:20 AM PST

	You make it sound as if it's impossible to determine right from wrong. Umm, but I, and many other people, think this kind of oppression is "wrong," especially when enforced by big government, not by private industry. Here's a clue: right and wrong have nothing to do with what I or you like. Gee thanks. I'll cherish your words. I'll put them on a fortune cookie. Communities always preserve themselves against infidels and common criminals. Hackers are common criminals by any rigorous definition (ie, not ESR's). Excellent point, my friend. However, you leave yourself open on this one. If you go around redifing "hacker" constantly, then sure. You can say, "hacker means anyone evil," then serenly say you hate all hackers. You're just mincing words to get a fun set of catch phrases to blow out your pie hole. This is why hackers are reported -- not "potrayed" -- as criminals in daily newspapers. Just like Osama bin Laden. I'm all for punishing people who commit crimes, so long as it's just and done with due process, like any other criminal would recieve, with a panel of expert witnesses to help the jury understand the issues. I think that's great. People are accountable for their actions. Fine. What I fail to see is how this "license" scheme would in any way accomplish that. How would outlawing any OS but Microsoft's OS help this? You can already, with modern routers, stop spoofing. With cheap disk space, logs of what Ip belongs to what customer at what time are easy for ISP's to keep. Instead of restricting people because you dislike the potential for crime ( in which case take away Windows XP and Windows 2000 as well ), why not just issue everyone public universal ID's. This way, each person is gloabally identified when they want to be. Things that make E-commerce possible, like digital cash, become a reality. Hackers can try, and fail, to steal your money because the principles behind digital cash are quite sound and protected from all angles. They might try to steal your ID, that's your job to protect. I suggest if you have it on a network machine, you have a secure operating system. Why start tacking on all these worthless and objectionable restrictions as well?

	pay attention (none / 0) (#260)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:41:29 AM PST

	hacker == criminal. No redefinition games necessary.

	That makes no sense. (none / 0) (#262)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:57:39 AM PST

	So any and all criminals are hackers? Why don't you give me YOUR definition of hacker. I'm sure it'd be very enlightening. If by hacker you mean coder (the historic definition) then I am proudly one. I like coding. It's one of my hobbies. If you mean hacker as in systems intrusion specialists, or just kiddees running scripts (the pop culture definition) then I could easily do things like that, but I don't. However, working knowledge of HOW such things are done is essential to garuntee security on your machine. I had a locksmith friend, he agreed with me on this. "You can't build a good luck until you can pick a bad one," he said. No matter how much you want otherwise, there will always be wrongdoers out there in any communinity. That's just reality. The reason security companies hire teams of burglars is to test their systems. These burglars have to know how to break and enter. The security of many important buildings and communities is tested constantly by these people, yet I don't see you pointing the finger at them. Why not, exactly? Don't forget the hacker definition.

	how many times must i repeat myself? (none / 0) (#265)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:22:04 PM PST

	My definition of hacker is a hacker is a criminal. Dont you read the newspaper?

	You're some kind of joke. (none / 0) (#268)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:59:15 PM PST

	Right. You're too stupid to continue this conversation with. Either you are being stupid on purpose to try and heckle me, or you just really are that brick-stupid. Either way, it's not worth continuing a conversation with someone who can't even form sentances. I hope someone comes along to change your diaper soon.

	fool (none / 0) (#192)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:56:11 AM PST

	we've established that there isn't a secure cryptographic way to make sure I use any OS We've established nothing of the sort, you wildly optimistic buffoon farting crosswind and up river. We've established your profound level of ignorance on the subject and verified how a little soundbite knowledge in the hands of a fool is a dangerous, not to mention insufferable, thing. After you've figure out how to breach the cryptographic controls of the New Internet by spoofing a valid digital signature, you will no doubt be transferring vast fortunes from the Banking sector's network. Well, no, you wont. And even if you are struck smart, you will do it once and rot in jail forever after; this hypothetical hack would be an 'incident', and an incident is a very different from the mathematical impossibility of a secure architecture for the New Internet. In fact, the New Internet will be more secure from hackers than economics is from theft. Although I lie awake nights worrying myself sick about the effects of hacking on my children, I never think their economic prospects are doomed because old Mrs. Carruthers down the street had her wallet lifted when she was 22 and drunk at a party. Sure, one time there was a slight tremor and a cheap vase fell off the table and crashed to the floor, but the house stood. Duh.

	revised for clarity for hacker addled imaginations (none / 0) (#200)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:53:49 AM PST

	Let me put it in the lingo of facile hacker truisms so that you can understand: The New Internet will recognize hackers as damage and route around them. It will do this, in part, oversimplifying without exaggerating already developped technology, by rejecting logons from computers which cannot supply a valid digital signature. You qualify for a valid digital signature if you pass stringent Class C licensing requirements. Until you do so, your hardware is cryptographically prevented from sullying the public Internet. While on the New Internet, IPv6 packets will preserve the signature, routers will tirelessly confirm its authenticty, and anonymity will become a fairy tale to scare our children into eating their spinach, a metaphor for evil and anarchy in the promotion of law and order. (Trust me on this, I am a Mythologiest whose PhD thesis was an algorithm for the computer exegesis of Joe Campbell's monomyth.)

	Vulnerabilities... (none / 0) (#221)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:34:52 PM PST

	You qualify for a valid digital signature if you pass stringent Class C licensing requirements. Vulnerability: Social engineering. Until you do so, your hardware is cryptographically prevented from sullying the public Internet. Vulnerability: Using stolen or counterfeit signature. While on the New Internet, IPv6 packets will preserve the signature, routers will tirelessly confirm its authenticty, and anonymity will become a fairy tale to scare our children into eating their spinach, a metaphor for evil and anarchy in the promotion of law and order. ...which will effectively quench whistleblowing, if it'd be without holes. Vulnerability: Stolen or counterfeit key (false identity or pseudonymity) Vulnerability: Offshore proxies Vulnerability: "Autonomous" proxies: worms (Code Red II comes to mind) spreading over the Net and opening infected machines as anonymyzing proxies. Vulnerability: Packet spoofing. (Trust me on this, I am a Mythologiest whose PhD thesis was an algorithm for the computer exegesis of Joe Campbell's monomyth.) What is monomyth, please? (Yes, even mad scientists don't know everything.)

	your objections are trivial (5.00 / 1) (#249)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 08:02:03 PM PST

	Let me summarize your post. Life. Vulnerability: stuff, then death. Solution: Dont live or, if you must live, minimize contact with physical world by becoming a hacker. Life is acceptably vulnerable, my crank friend, but only the current internet is 100% vulnerable by design. Again, we only seek parity with the physical world. In the physical world, I can take my evening stroll without fear of Pamela Anderson jumping out of the bushes and flashing her whorish teats at me. On the internet, this is not possible. Do you know that I once typed "golf balls" in a search engine and was tricked into visiting a gay site? Of course you know; I've heard all about the hacker's flagship site, goatse.cx. What is monomyth, please? As if a homosexual would understand.

	What the hell?!? (none / 0) (#254)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:30:29 AM PST

	This is.. incredible. You're the most juvenile anonymous reader in this little thread yet! I hate to burst your bubble, but stereotypes are pretty evil, my fiendish little friend. Saying all hackers are social outcasts by choice who shun light and live only to commit petty computer crime is just like saying all Jewish people are accountants, or saying all black people should be shoeshiners. It's just a stereotype, man. Lots of technically affluent people exist as normal folks, doing lots of normal things. You can dislike people like the stereotype, but you shouldn't pound people into that little hole in your mind just to try and gain some fleeting sense of superiority over them. You're sick. I find it ironic, you're sitting there using a computer, running on a network, writing at a site, written in a language.... all these things were made by "hackers" or at least pioneered by "hackers." Some might have been recluses, some quite public. If you loathe it so much, why even use a computer? I'm waiting for you to weasel out of that contradcition, you little worm. Do you know that I once typed "golf balls" in a search engine and was tricked into visiting a gay site? Of course you know; I've heard all about the hacker's flagship site, goatse.cx. Somehow, I don't think it was very hard to trick you. How about you stop playing with the shiney computer and go play "Hit yourself with a hammer in the eye." It's fun. Try it.

	contradictions piled upon word games (none / 0) (#259)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:40:01 AM PST

	First you tell me that all the scary stories I read about hackers in my newspaper are propaganda: It's just a stereotype, man. Then you threaten me with violence: go play "Hit yourself with a hammer in the eye." Hmmm. Hacker is no more a stereotype than criminal is, my artful hacker criminal friend.

	Just avoid the questions, kiddo. (none / 0) (#263)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:05:01 PM PST

	Personal attacks are fine, but you have to mix a bit of substance in with your attacks, otherwise it's just drivel. First you tell me that all the scary stories I read about hackers in my newspaper are propaganda Well, yes and no. Sometimes, they are blown out of proportion, sometimes they aren't. If you are asking me, "Are there bad people with computers out there?" then my answer is yes, yes there are plenty. However, because the reporters covering the stories seldom know enough about the story to really boil it down to layman's terms, things tend to get quite garbled. Like any sane person in this Age of Lies, I try to corroborate my information with other sources. You'd do well to do that too. Then you threaten me with violence: I'm not threatening you with violence. I'm suggesting you do the world a big favor and terminate your existance. I have no intention of doing it myself. Just answer the question I asked you. How do you justify what you are doing? Somehow I doubt you will though.

	hacker == criminal (none / 0) (#266)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:24:50 PM PST

	Personal attacks are fine, That must be why you constantly indulge in them. Nevertheless, when a judge sentences a hacker to prison, he is not making a "personal attack". Sheesh.

	Still avoiding the question? (none / 0) (#269)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 03:01:00 PM PST

	Why not just answer it? Is it because you CAN'T answer it? Why do you people always shy away from the contradition I just pointed out?

	are you hard of reading? (none / 0) (#270)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:48:23 PM PST

	What question, what contradiction? Are you having a problem with the concept of crime and punishment? Hackers are criminals by definition. If you know of a benign computer user, he isnt a hacker. Answer your own rhetorical questions if you can remember them; I shall have no truck with common criminals.

	Hello Mr. Short Attention Span! (none / 0) (#271)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:32:58 AM PST

	Perhaps, my easily bamboozled adversary, your short attention span made you lose my original question. That's fine, I don't expect much of you. I said: I find it ironic, you're sitting there using a computer, running on a network, writing at a site, written in a language.... all these things were made by "hackers" or at least pioneered by "hackers." Some might have been recluses, some quite public. If you loathe it so much, why even use a computer? So? Why do you? You know a lot of interesting things you use have been made my computer users who are less than benign. Under this internet license mechanism dmg seems to love so much, even law abiding citizens would be potential risks, wouldn't they? I can, and have written my own OS. I can probably do anything most "hackers" can do if I want to. Does this make me a subversive element? Must I too be "eliminated" because I have an education? You seem so convinced that I am in favor of injustice. Wrong. People who commit crimes should be punished to the extent of the law, and that's that. The scheme in question here, though, wouldn't do this. All it would do is up the regulation. The scrutiny of the internet is bound to happen, with or without this foolish and tiresome licensce idea, so don't worry about security. Regulation != less crime, as history and experience should show. I can't believe you can be such a hypocrite. Doesn't it strike you as odd you're just as senseless, cruel, and mindless as any linux drone you all claim to hate so much?

	tell it to the judge, hackerboy (none / 0) (#275)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 09:37:50 AM PST

	I find it ironic, you're sitting there using a computer, running on a network, writing at a site, written in a language.... all these things were made by "hackers" or at least pioneered by "hackers." It wasnt built by criminals, you intransigent git, it was built by scientists under employ of the United States Military Industrial Complex. And even if you were correct in your most preposterous claim, so what? "What right did we have to destroy the Nazi Germany Hitler built? After all, many American companies, and IBM in particular, profited from the Nazis." LOL. You hackers and your logical fallacies -- you slay me.

	Oh yeah. Riiight. Sure. (none / 0) (#277)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 11:28:41 AM PST

	It wasnt built by criminals, you intransigent git, it was built by scientists under employ of the United States Military Industrial Complex. And even if you were correct in your most preposterous claim, so what? Honestly, you're so good at avoiding the question, I'm tired of pressing you. Great. You're a hypocrite. You've probably always been one. That's fine. I don't have to know you any longer. Just remember this. Not everyone you see out there who knows how to do a thing is a criminal. Plenty of physicists know the process for designing a hydrogen bomb. They might need some engineering assistance. I'd say the hydrogen bomb is a bit more dangerous than any virus or worm. You don't lock them up. You don't put spies around them. You don't say they need licenses to write books about the atom bomb. They can't publish detailed plans for one of the government's existing bombs, but they can make their own plans and distribute. I don't see you complaining about that. Goodbye, hypocrite. I've had my fill of your liberal website uneducated bullshit.

	Ahh. Excellent. Details. (none / 0) (#227)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:18:02 PM PST

	Allright, I know the patronage of this site dislikes math, technology, and all the trappings of education, so I'll try to stay simple with this. will do this, in part, oversimplifying without exaggerating already developped technology, by rejecting logons from computers which cannot supply a valid digital signature. You qualify for a valid digital signature if you pass stringent Class C licensing requirements. Until you do so, your hardware is cryptographically prevented from sullying the public Internet. While on the New Internet, IPv6 packets will preserve the signature, routers will tirelessly confirm its authenticty, and anonymity will become a fairy tale to scare our children into eating their spinach, a metaphor for evil and anarchy in the promotion of law and order. (Trust me on this, I am a Mythologiest whose PhD thesis was an algorithm for the computer exegesis of Joe Campbell's monomyth.) Give me a valid digital signature for a class A license. I will run any OS I please and make sure to play nice with the protocol. It's not even a complex idea. Until you do so, your hardware is cryptographically prevented from sullying the public Internet I wanna attack this statement in particular. What the hell? How would you intend to do this. Once again, this comes down to some simple issues of information theory. Can't do it, so long as I know the secret (which will be clearly stated in an OS that has to know it to operate). Anyone with the inclination will be unrestricted. Do you even know what benefits IPv6 would provide? sigh And since when has the idea of enforced monopolies been a principle of the United States, the home of the internet? Maybe in other countries this would fly, but conservatives and hacker-liberals would be all over it. It's a stupid idea, which is unenforceable, and quite frankly it's not worth the effort. Just watch what your kids look at online, and stay away from places you might not like. Spam email? Get procmail or set up outlook or Mail.app whatever way you like. Every OS, every mailer, has a solution to this. Life is rough for the person who tries to treat their computer like a blender, because that person is stupid. Ignorance is the might of the mob, and adequacy.org.

	This is hard for you, isnt it? (none / 0) (#232)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:25:55 AM PST

	Give me a valid digital signature for a class A license. No I will not. Microsoft will. The system differs from software registration keys in its robustness and in its inability to be spoofed. I will run any OS I please and make sure to play nice with the protocol. No you will not. Oh, I get it. You're one of those cranks who periodically posts algebra errors on sci.crypt, right? "I CRACKED DES!!". Lol. You guys cant even get something so simple as a 30 year old UNIX kernel to work right.

	What is it with you, anyways? (none / 0) (#238)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 12:06:08 PM PST

	No I will not. Microsoft will. The system differs from software registration keys in its robustness and in its inability to be spoofed. What system? There is no system. There will be no system! There is no system that CAN do what you want here. There never has been, and there never will be. You can mumble about cryptography and hypothetical systems all you like, but it's not going to change mathematics. No you will not. Oh, I get it. You're one of those cranks who periodically posts algebra errors on sci.crypt, right? "I CRACKED DES!!". No. Unlike most people on the net, I feel no need to be a poser. I'm stating simple fact, simple information theory, simple mathematics. Stuff the informed and educated cryptographers of the world generally agree with. Sorry if that shatters your little dream. You guys cant even get something so simple as a 30 year old UNIX kernel to work right. Seems to work fine for everyone else (seeing as how, you know, most of the big services of the net are RUN on *nix or BSD boxes), maybe you just need to stop pretending your computer is something like a toaster or a television, and think a little bit? Naah, don't stress yourself. By the way, don't assume every educated, computer-literate open source advocate is a die hard linux user with strange ideas about "information being free." I believe in scaling back government regulation, a stance that I, and most of the world, finds quite conservative. I don't even have linux on this computer, sorry to disappoint you. However, somehow, I'm sure you look down your nose. After all, you've never read good books like Animal Farm and Brave New World, right?

	my, you are ignorant (none / 0) (#244)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:59:34 PM PST

	There will be no system! There is no system that CAN do what you want here. You can demonstrate how little you know by spending the rest of your life unsuccessfully trying to log onto the banking sector's global network. Do you think there are terrorist screeds on that network? How about pictures of stretched anuses? ESR's hacker "dictionary"? Do you think, period? Your opinion of self is vastly overrated. You are not educated at all, and you certainly dont know anything about cryptography and "information theory" (how many times must I correct your conflation of that discipline with cryptography?) except a few hollow slogans.

	That's, um, slightly different. (none / 0) (#251)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:12:49 AM PST

	You can demonstrate how little you know by spending the rest of your life unsuccessfully trying to log onto the banking sector's global network. "The Banking Sector's Global Network" sounds like a nightclub, doesn't it? I hate to point this out to you, but the problems aren't equivalent. Further, once a machine is admitted onto such a network, the restrictions are much more lax. Mostly, it works because everyone adheres to protocols, and it's not a network that is easy to get keys to get into... Do you really equate the problem of a regulated internet with a special purpose private network? Stay out of corperate IT work, friend. That's good advice for the likes of you. Do you think there are terrorist screeds on that network? How about pictures of stretched anuses? ESR's hacker "dictionary"? You're sick. I can only imagine what you do in your spare time.

	FINALLY! (none / 0) (#276)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 09:40:14 AM PST

	That's, um, slightly different. So, um, will be the New Internet.

	You and your "New Internet" (none / 0) (#278)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:23:44 AM PST

	I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Economically, there is no reason to change right away, and freedom loving people outnumber socialist pigs like yourself. You have no business talking about the "New Internet" since you have no technical knowledge from which to base it on. You don't know what advantages IPv6 will offer, and why they really don't apply. You don't know why IPv6 won't be deployed for years and years. You don't know much of anything, really. You have the same thing in common with so many other people here, when presented with arguments you can't fight, you just post a dickhead little post that doesn't say anything at all, and hope that your vitriol will scare your opponent off. Join a debate team or something. Pointless little jabs cannot carry an argument. Stop wasting your time replying to this thread. You can't construct a meaninful argument to save your life.

	Did you have an argument to make? (none / 0) (#281)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:16:47 AM PST

	I know you are but what am I? By the way, I am not a Godless socialist, I am a man of the cloth, a Republican.

	correction (none / 0) (#245)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:01:47 PM PST

	[Linux[ Seems to work fine for everyone else If by "everyone else" you mean the 0.24% of people who run it, then I stand corrected.

	Which market? (none / 0) (#250)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:55:54 AM PST

	Server market, maybe? That's where it makes sense to use it. Linux really isn't a desktop OS just yet. Stop trying to pigeon-hole me into being a linux zealot, because I'm not. You'd just like me to be to tidy up all the loose ends in your pathetic delusion.

	Incident vs breach (none / 0) (#222)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:45:34 PM PST

	And even if you are struck smart, you will do it once and rot in jail forever after; If and only if caught. this hypothetical hack would be an 'incident', and an incident is a very different from the mathematical impossibility of a secure architecture* for the New Internet.* Well said - secure architecture is mathematically impossible. Also, if a scheme is compromised once, it is compromised forever. The hole existed there for all the time; by exploiting it, it is just experimentally proven it was there, and it is marked and labeled for future use by everyone who bothers. Until it is patched and plugged. Then the next round begins... In fact, the New Internet will be more secure from hackers than economics is from theft. Depends on the vendor. If it will be certain big company from the Seattle area, I bet the New Internet will have more holes than Swiss Cheese after close encounter with a shotgun.

	There is no way to do what you are suggesting. (none / 0) (#226)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:09:49 PM PST

	The second you give someone a valid digital signature, they can use it any way they see fit. Perhaps, you're thinking "sign the OS they are using." This seems like a good idea at first, however, it won't work. What stops someone from spoofing this? Quite frankly, nothing concrete. It's impossible, and always will be impossible, to do what you're suggesting. It's a simple matter of information theory. You're trying to assure identity AND authenticity. You can't really do both outside of a few small, special cases of which there are few equivalent problems. Don't you think there are better things to lie awake worrying about? The hole in the ozone? The decay of american society? The rising price of cheese? If you are so worried about what exposure to a medium can do to your child, DON'T EXPOSE S/HE TO IT IN AN UNSUPERVISED MANNER. When you actually know of a way to make this "new internet" in a way that's enforcible, then go make a lot of money. Until then, don't sit here on a ratty soap box looking down your nose at someone who tells you it's impossible.

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#233)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:32:38 AM PST

	The second you give someone a valid digital signature, they can use it any way they see fit. If I give them the fucking signature, twit, I know who them is, and them best not do anything that will cause me to revoke said signature and send them to prison. I think I see your problem. You dont understand the concept of "identification." Your driver's license is a mystery to you. It's a simple matter of information theory. No it is not a matter of "information theory". Information theory is about signals, you utter idiot. Go away.

	You're painfully uninformed. (none / 0) (#235)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 11:21:13 AM PST

	I love this. This is like what Nichze wrote, the flock hates to see people excel above it. Just because I have an education, I am ridiculed here. The problem with this "signature" idea is that even if you can identify me, you can't prove I'm doing anything wrong. Sure, you can limit my bandwidth and whatnot, but that really doesn't matter. Sure, you can have tireless routers authenticating things, but you still need not know I've done anything wrong. And once one person figures out how to do it, s/he'll tell everyone else. And once s/he tells everyone, everyone will do it. The internet will return to the way it was before, without your expensive and utterly worthless little modifications. Personally, I'm in favor of giving everyone in the world a well known internet identity. I think that'd be a GOOD thing. What I'm opposed to, in this proposal, is the limitation of people's ability to buy what kind of line they can afford, and to use whatever OS they choose. Give the people well known ID's, I think that's great.

	your days are numbered, criminal (none / 0) (#239)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 12:35:23 PM PST

	The problem with this "signature" idea is that even if you can identify me, you can't prove I'm doing anything wrong. Can you try to make sense, O Educated One? Identification is the mechanism by which we assign culpability, not the method by which we prove culpability. We prove malfeasance by tracking a signature as it wreaks criminal havoc around cyberspace. (IPv6 headers refer.) Since the signature uniquely identifies every user on a per OS and hardware configuration, identification reduces to a simple table lookup. None of this is science fiction, it is the current state of technology. (Granted, not Lunix technology which is at least 25 years behind Microsoft's pace of innovation. Maybe that's why you understand none of it?)

	Innocent until proven guilty. (none / 0) (#240)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 01:30:54 PM PST

	What crime have I commited? I happen to enjoy the status of law abiding citizen of the united states. Ahh, but I'm a criminal in your eyes, because you, like all your liberal friends, believe strongly in profiling. Can you try to make sense, O Educated One? Identification is the mechanism by which we assign culpability, not the method by which we prove culpability. How very droll. You'd need that signature just to prove you're running a mandated operating system. You'd need that identity for verification of lots of things. How many signatures are you going to give each person? For several millions of people using the internet, it becomes a bit unwieldly. We prove malfeasance by tracking a signature as it wreaks criminal havoc around cyberspace. (IPv6 headers refer.) Wait wait wait. You're waiting for IPv6 to do this? Why? You can do it now! You have a source address field in IPv4, and most modern routers can easily be set up to disallow spoofing. From there, all you need to do is require ISP's to disclose their IP assignment records. Why wait forever for IPv6, which will be years and years in showing up anyways. Your socialist utopian world can be yours today. If you'd bother to pick up a book and read, you'd know this. Since the signature uniquely identifies every user on a per OS and hardware configuration, identification reduces to a simple table lookup. Another funny statement. Gee, table lookups are mighty simple with millions of permutations of millions upon millions of entries. Even the best databases will struggle with what you are suggesting here. What exactly makes you think you're qualified to assess the "current state of technology?" Unless, gasp, you're admitting to maybe being a HACKER! Maybe you should be burnt at the stake or something. After all, all subversive elements must be driven out of society, so that we may all function as one perfect unity, under the rule of the Elders. Want some Soma?</sarcasm> I just fail to see how you can think that MS is that far ahead by the way. For networking things, they're about equal. Really the only reason your precious company is losing the server market is simple price-performance. Just because linux isn't better, doesn't mean any MS product is. They just do different things. Why do people get so bitter and refuse to just accept the fact there are many difference choices in life. If anyone has a superior OS these days, It's Apple. It's got everything good from both worlds.

	it's not magic, it's math (none / 0) (#246)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:11:42 PM PST

	What crime have I commited? I happen to enjoy the status of law abiding citizen of the united states. Then you have nothing to fear, citizen. Gee, table lookups are mighty simple with millions of permutations of millions upon millions of entries. Even the best databases will struggle with what you are suggesting here. Oh, we wont be running them on Linux, silly. Quite apart from its performance issues, Linux is a hacker OS and therefore not a New Internet legal OS. That means cryptographic tokens for Linux wont be issued to vendors of Linux distributions. That means no Linux machines will be able to connect to the New Internet.

	Err, but that's a contradiction. (none / 0) (#252)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:23:39 AM PST

	Oh, we wont be running them on Linux, silly. I don't care what you run them on. The millions to any power, any permutation, is enourmous. A few billion potential users, if they only have 3 elements, just permuting those will be space prohibitive, let alone being able to sort through them. Quite apart from its performance issues, Good, you're not qualified to discuss them anyways. Linux is a hacker OS and therefore not a New Internet legal OS. What exactly does "hacker os" mean. What qualifies and OS to be a "hacker os?" Does Windows XP count, since it's easier than linux to create programs that use raw sockets to create malformed and potentially malevolent packets? Or is that a detail you'd like to leave out? That means cryptographic tokens for Linux wont be issued to vendors of Linux distributions. That means no Linux machines will be able to connect to the New Internet. What about "class C license holders" who can use them to, you know, power a big dedicated server for which Windows may not be optimal to use? I hate to rock the boat in such an anti-linux community, but people, lots of people, use it for varying reasons. Linux has at least shown itself to be competitive in the performance spectrum, if not the ease of use spectrum. It's allright to dislike Linux, man, but there are plenty of uses for it. Denying that is just like throwing a temper tantrum, only it makes you look even less intelligent (no small feat, I assure you). I have to admit I'm having fun in this debate. You people are a laugh a post. I've been archiving all these, they're too funny to lose. Keep entertaining me.

	just like a hacker to dream up new crimes (none / 0) (#234)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:39:12 AM PST

	You're trying to assure identity AND authenticity. Works more than acceptably well for the Department of Motor Vehicules. Will you be breaking into people's homes to steal their Class C Internet Licenses?

	Nope. (none / 0) (#236)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 11:25:20 AM PST

	The reason that the DMV of the US works so well is because it is difficult to reproduce the cards they use. If it was a trivial procedure to perfectly copy a liscense, the DMV would fall apart. A string of bits is a much easier thing to copy, and an environment to fool people into thinking your string of bits is the one they want, processed in the way they specify, is likewise quite doable. Giving just an identity would be quite different, and quite possible, but you also need to verify their operating system, their hardware, their connection type.... All of that gets impossible without a trusted, omniscient arbiter.

	Are you on drugs? (none / 0) (#247)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:19:47 PM PST

	The reason that the DMV of the US works so well is because it is difficult to reproduce the cards they use. If it was a trivial procedure to perfectly copy a liscense It's child's play to counterfeit cards compared to the impossible task of breaking public key cryptography. There is not one hacker that will ever breathe long enough to understand the mathematics of complex and bounded complex systems, much less crack them. Forget it, doofus. You are simply flat out wrong about the viability of the proposed new internet. The trivial proof of this is the many private networks already in extistence. Sheesh. This isnt your old internet, kiddo.

	Err, what do you think public key crypto does? (none / 0) (#255)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:35:16 AM PST

	It's NOT child's play to counterfit most DMV cards, it's quite hard. Public key cryptography isn't the subject here, my fiesty little friend. The subject is simple. Once you issue a "token" to me, something that I use to verify who I am, what I am running, and whatnot, I can use it. Maybe it's encrypted, that's easy to get around, since the computer will have to decrypt it at some point to use it. If I can't get it via software, I'll get it with a logic analyzer. Once I have that token, I can do whatever I like, and no one will be the wiser. As I asked another Anonymous reader, will you now ban logic analyzers? Why exactly is it so evil to run linux anyways? Is it evil to use it train new techs in how to design operating systems, so that your shiney new microsoft products will keep churning out? Why do you and your gang of thugs get to decide this, instead of the majority? Somehow, I don't think it's very fair.

	Hello? (none / 0) (#185)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:50:01 PM PST

	Umm...just so you know, a good number of highways and local roads are technically poperty of corporations or individuals. In fact, Microsoft owns EVERY road in it's immediate area that leads to it and in Chicago there are a few families which own roads around here. Roads are REAL ESTATE, you CAN control and own them. The only thing is that it's added to your property tax bill and you are required to maintenence them as if they were sidewalks ( or pay the government to ). And no, you don't have to think of the children. You know what? Screw the children. Let the children fall down once and a while, gawd. The parents of the next few generations are going to raise sappy, pussy, little kids who don't understand how to be 'mean' and are going to be massively taken advantage of by our government and system. More products of the media, very smart. Nothing like taking your child's life away.

	Good-bye! (none / 0) (#202)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:37:16 AM PST

	And no, you don't have to think of the children. You know what? Screw the children. No, see, that's the point we're trying to impress upon you. Pedophelia is already against the law; soon it will be enforced on the New Internet as it is in meat space. There is only one society, not two. The hacker dichotomy between the physical world and the computer infrastructure occupying it is trivially FALSE. Hackers want to believe it is true because their criminal behavior must be rationalized in their own feeble minds. They'll have no such luck, I'm afraid.

	Missing the point (none / 0) (#264)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:19:14 PM PST

	No, see, that's the point we're trying to impress upon you. Pedophelia is already against the law; soon it will be enforced on the New Internet as it is in meat space. Actually, I think this is missing the point. The FBI is quite good at tracking down child pornography sites that are in violation of the law, in America. Britan and Germany aren't bad about it either from what I hear. In some countries though, it's perfectly legal. Is the """""""New Internet""""""" a separate country into and of itself? If so, shouldn't it be governed by it's population? That's the only way it could legally work, it seems to me. So, in order to have the New Internet, which can ban content from itself, there needs to be an international entity behind it. The form of government would undoubtedly be democratic (since that's pretty much the only way people do things anymore). Maybe even taxes could be levied. It also means you, and your friends here, would be sorely outnumbered in a vote. Which makes me rest easy, your evil socialist world won't come to pass. By the way, I think your jab about the 2 worlds is a bit misguided. Sometimes people have two personas, but they seldom have two worldviews. Most of the time they are just as freakish in meatspace as they are in cyberspace, if you'll excuse the rather tired terminology.

	Metallica said it best.... (none / 0) (#88)
	by Blarney on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:28:40 PM PST

	As Metallica says... Free speech! Free speech! For the dumb. Free speech! Free speech! For the dumb. Free speech! Suddenly, a helicopter above my apartment booms out an announcement over a loudspeaker. "You have inflinged the copylights of Sony Corpolation! Otaroi!" Kamikaze bombers, strapped to explosive toilets by their belts, with their pants around their ankles, plummet bearing their explosive burdens. Never again will I quote Metallica lyrics without permission.

	Metallica? (none / 0) (#108)
	by tkatchev on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:40:55 AM PST

	Oh yes, the premiere juvenile pop-metal band is my top source of advice on philosophy and politics. -- Peace and much love...

	Juvenile? (none / 0) (#173)
	by Blarney on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:04:32 PM PST

	I didn't know Metallica were "Juvenile". They look like a bunch of old farts to me.

	Finally, a system that works! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:10:36 AM PST

	It has come to my attention that the internet is based on computer code that is not only NOT microsoft software, it isn't even microsoft certified! Apparently all this code was written by hippies in the sixties and hasn't been updated since. Most of it seems to have been a result of some "merry prankster"-style freak-out. Internet code seems to have anonymity designed into it. This, to my mind is a glaring flaw. You do not do anonymous business with people. You do not hold anonymous conversations with people. Anonymity is a dangerous thing for any society, particular one such as the internet, which attracts a large number of unstable minds. The internet has proven time and time again that the only result of widespread anonymity is crime. Hackers, death threats, defamation and countless other misdeeds are perpetrated upon the internet population every day by masked wrongdoers and career criminals. The internet seems to be based around the concept that people should be anonymous unless they choose not to be. This is simply absurd. The internet should firmly regulate identity, ensuring that a person's name, address and phone number are made available to any site that he or she attends. It is then up to the site to decide whether or not this information should be made public. Naturally, most sites on the internet would publish this information, for the protection of their users from harassment and hacking. This licensing initiative offers the only sensible means to ensure that people on the internet are held accountable for their actions. Until the internet implements this scheme, it will remain a lawless wasteland, completely devoid of commercial potential. This comment remains the property of Tiberius Reginald Gibbons, esq. The right of Tiberius Reginald Gibbons to be identified as the author of the author of the article has been asserted. T Reginald Gibbons is a pseudonym.

	Fortunately it doesn't. (none / 0) (#131)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:21:23 AM PST

	what is this Internet code you are talking about? The protocols? HTML? Unix? "The internet should firmly regulate identity, ensuring that a person's name, address and phone number are made available to any site that he or she attends" Great so I can start up my own site and obtain peoples addresses and phone numbers. Then I can sell the information to advertising companies. Great job. "Anonymity is a dangerous thing for any society" You dont have to be a criminal to want privicy. Most of my (legal) activities online are done anomynously, using a proxy. "The internet seems to be based around the concept that people should be anonymous unless they choose not to be" Actually people are unanomynous online unless they make themselves anomynous. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Can you say 'shut up'?? (none / 0) (#135)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:04:04 AM PST

	It has come to my attention that the internet is based on computer code that is not only NOT microsoft software, it isn't even microsoft certified! Apparently all this code was written by hippies in the sixties and hasn't been updated since. Most of it seems to have been a result of some "merry prankster"-style freak-out. Fine. You can change the standards if you want to by becoming involved in a working group at the IETF. Fortunately for you as well, the vast majority of implementations of the various protocols that make the Internet "just work" for you, are Open Source meaning that if you want to tweak SMTP then you can fiddle with Sendmail, or if you prefer to play with RADIUS then there are plenty of implementations. In fact, if you want to tweak TCP/IP itself, as it's an open standard there are not only open source operating systems that allows you to fiddle to your hearts content, but some of them even allow you to bundle them up and sell them as your own invention! - thank God for open standards and open source, eh? You do not do anonymous business with people What, so every time you walk into a shop to buy a loaf of bread, both yourself and the shop assistant fully brief each other on home address, telephone number, etc. ? You do not hold anonymous conversations with people Again, do you fully brief the person you are asking directions from as to who you are? What about when you phone up a sales line to order some 'stuff' to fill up your life? When you order a hamburger? Fill your car with 'gas' - do you demand to know who the attendant is? They are all psedou-anonymous. They could be trying to kill you. Anonymity is a dangerous thing for any society Is it? What about a site offering guidance to women who are being physically and sexually abused by their husbands? Should that demand to know their identity? What about sites that address gay health issues? What if somebody desperately needs help, or to cry out, but doesn't have what it takes to reveal their identity at that time - either because they are unsure about their position, or in genuine fear of their lives? Surely thier identity should remain anonymous. And if you're so sure that things should be so public, how about we take a look and see what sort of porn you take a look at when nobody is watching? In fact, why don't you publish your very own full name, address and phone number for all of us to see? I'll bet you $5 you won't.

	there you go again!! (none / 0) (#166)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:55:48 PM PST

	How can I be bothered to read past your first sentence when even that is a lie. The protocols are not open source. They are shared source - like Microsoft. Thank God Nobody would ever let linux zealots near a business. --philipm

	Read it again (none / 0) (#197)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:45:15 AM PST

	It doesn't say the protocols are open source. It says that some of the implementations of them are. If you can't be bothered to read the first sentence correctly, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading any of the posts here.

	oh I see! What was I thinking!!!!!! (none / 0) (#218)
	by philipm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:36:49 PM PST

	It puts the lotion on. Preciosssssssss. --philipm

	TV? (none / 0) (#103)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:32:33 AM PST

	Watching TV is a potentially dangerous activity?

	Sure, the FCC agree, as does the British Govt (none / 0) (#104)
	by dmg on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:45:30 AM PST

	Watching TV is a potentially dangerous activity? There is plenty of evidence that watching violent TV causes individuals to commit violent crimes, that is why in the UK, television viewers are required to take an exam and obtain a TV License before they watch TV. The license costs over $100, and there is a system of government agents with very strong powers to enforce the law. Our FCC agrees that TV causes violence and is taking technological steps to adress the issue. My proposals for licensing Internet users are a logical next step. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	TV? (1.00 / 1) (#181)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:50:44 PM PST

	No the Brits tax TVs as a throwback to WW2 where the germans didn't want their people to hear british propaganda, and the brits didn't want their people listening to german propaganda. Now the licensing is just another way to squeeze money from the queen's subjects. That is why a license for a color tv is more expensive than a balck and white set. As for the rest of your proposal... Do you work for Microsoft? It seems that your vision of the way things should be coincide with theirs. The engineers who developed the internet have a much different view. That is that it should be populated by a billion equals in free and open discussion and that key communications channels should not be locked down by monopolies and monopoly granting governments. But this discussion is mute and meaningless. Pandora is out of the box.

	FCC and V-Chip (none / 0) (#186)
	by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:24:49 AM PST

	The FCC may require that V-Chips be inserted into TVs. However their use is voluntary. If you actually bothered to read the article the blocking of various material is implemented by the parent. It's not like it's turned on by default. Most people will probably not even know that televisions they own have a V-Chip. Besides the FCC doesn't have any control over networks in other countries. The most you can ever hope mandatory blocking software in web browsers. Of course it will need to be implemented first. So if people don't know it's there they won't use it. Also whoever said that "the rest of the internet was just crap needs to do some study of what the Internet (Net) actually is. Then do some research on what the world wide web (web) is and how it works. Without the web the net can still exist but without the net the web cannot. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Internet License (none / 0) (#111)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:17:46 AM PST

	This post is some sort of a sick joke, is it not? I do not like windoze and I do not use windoze for anything except games and to check cross-platform programming. To force me to use this crappy product because you have say so just plain stupid. The internet does not need any regulation. You do not like what you read? Filter it out. You are worried about some communist plot, or Islamic platform to spread terrorism and then you claim to have the best interests of the people in mind? You, sir, are a terrorist and a communist by even displaying the audacity to decide what is wrong, or right for me. How you came up withe windoze as the platform of choice is truly a mystery, since the security weaknesses in simple things such as email is frightening. I challenge you to send me one of your "I Love You" virii. I promise you that I will open any attachment that you send me, okay? Then you must promise to do the same on your windoze box. Since the internet is truly a great pool of information, I want my 9 and 11 year old daughters to have access to that information. Have a question on the best way to raise ants? Want to know why the sun shines? Want to know why idiots like you have the privilege of posting such drivel? All of that information can be found on the internet. This sounds like the dark ages and the power of the church. Do not teach people basic skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic and they will be dependent on us forever. We can then control them and kill those who disagree with us. It took the church centuries to admit that Galileo was right, although everyone else knew it for millenia. You want to thrust us back in time with your medieval thinking and I am not ever going to stand for that. Whether you believe it or not, the vast majority of the people on this planet are good people--regardless of their religious beliefs, or non-beliefs. To label everyone for the actions of an extremely small minority is just plain nonsense. By the way, the reason that you pay for a fishing license has nothing to do with how you fish. It is too generate funds to aid in fish conservation. The reason that you pay for a license to handle a gun, is because so many people have them and it generates huge sums of money. The people who use their guns for criminal activities do not register them, or pay licensing fees. Take a good look at yourself and see where your fears are coming from. You may be able to get some help addressing those fears and enjoy being a part of the world again. If not, I just feel sorry for you.

	You have to be kidding!!! (more){k_p} (none / 0) (#115)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:22:53 AM PST

	A license to use to web. Now thats funny. You guys must work for the goverment. How much do you propose to charge for this license? Will we have to wait in long lines done at the Registry and get told we have the wrong paperwork filled out? Will there be CyberCops patroling the Net running peoples ID#'s and pull them over to harrass them? I assume that you will want fines to go along with this. Will I be required to get insurance? You never know these days, Ive seen my friends surf the Net, and they are pretty wreckless. You must be living in a dream world, because this will never happen. "CyberArmy is a group of netizens who believe in a deregulated Internet, which is free from external control. We believe in providing tools to assist others who believe in a free Internet - we support Open Source. We campaign against those who abuse the free nature of the Internet. We believe that spammers, child pornographers, web based scammers, and malicious hackers are enemies of the Internet. We believe that the Internet can be self-regulated, and that we, as equipped and knowledgable netizens, can control and suppress abusers of the Internet, with legal methods, by consolidating together as a united CyberArmy." k_phactor

	Read the article. (none / 0) (#119)
	by dmg on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:47:19 AM PST

	Will I be required to get insurance? If you had taken the time to read the article instead of jumping in with your knee-jerk reaction, you would have seen this: " In order to provide a means of redress for those affected by a licensed surfer's poor nettiquette, there will need to be a mandatory insurance law. All licensed Internet users will need to take out insurance to cover their liabilities for any abuses they perpetrate online (whether accidental or intentional). " So yes, you will need insurance. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I still think its a joke(more){k_p} (none / 0) (#125)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:17:53 AM PST

	I cant belive you actually support/belive this. My post was to point out the fact how ludicrous that idea is. I find it even more amusing that you had to quote his article just to prove some kind of point to me. I will enjoy your response to this (thats if/when you find something else to quote to me) k_phactor

	liberal puppet? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:58:55 AM PST

	Dude, you are a knee jerk liberal puppet. Who pulls your strings? Why not go to slashdot? There you can mindlessly flame a story, along with your fellow readers, posting 100's of responces and never even bothering to read or talk to anyone else. You see, we here at adequacy are not antisocial linux zealots. We like to have civil conversations about controversial things. We like TALKING to each other. You are a twit. It's people like you that make Texas need a death penalty. --philipm

	Now theres a real man right there(more){k_p} (none / 0) (#146)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:25:30 AM PST

	Man, you have some serious issues to deal with besides my post. I cant belive you are that upset with my post to respond to it in the fashion you did. You dont like my opinion, fine. Did I call anyone a name or "twit" as you call it? No. You sir need to relax and figure out what a "civil conversation" is all about. It's quite apparent you have no clue... k_phactor ...and that quote at the end of your post, now thats real "civil" lol.

	i love your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#165)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:50:39 PM PST

	i love your opinion. Its evolution in action. And between you and Koko the gorilla, I would put my money on Koko. --philipm

	So you need to result to name calling(more){k_p} (none / 0) (#207)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:21:15 PM PST

	You just keep proving my point, you have to make up for a lack in some department by stooping to name calling and insults. I, on the other hand am better than you and will not stoop down to your level. Grow up and learn to argue your point without insulting someone who dosent agree with your opinion. k_phactor

	hmm (5.00 / 1) (#217)
	by philipm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:29:59 PM PST

	well it would be SOOO much easier if you could tell the difference between opinion and fact --philipm

	Heres a tissue to cry into{k_p}<nt> (none / 0) (#274)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 06:56:56 AM PST

	no text k_phactor

	dont think so (none / 0) (#147)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:35:13 AM PST

	Its this topic which was published with no regard for what the internet actually is. Not only are there hundreds of practical problems with the whole idea of licensing which are blatently obvious, but the described consequences of licensing such as 'ridding us of hackers an terrorists' is pure fantasy. Noone attempts to answer the most challenging questions such as how they intend to ban compilers and prevent licenses from being obtained through deception and how they intend to prevent hackers from spoofing their ID numbers supposedly contained somewhere in the new IP/TCP stack. You'd think that the international property of the internet would have been thought over too but no, people are still quoting that the law will enforce this regulation without regard for the fact that US law doenst have internation juristriction. Any time any of us try to mention these flaws or problems you all accuse us of being hackers or linux zealot - that now famous cartoon character, without actually answering half the questions. Whenever I post arguments, my spelling mistakes are rapidly pointed out but the most challenging questions are met with the "you're liberal" answer. Now THAT is a mindless comment. I am coming up with arguments to why this internet licensing idea wont work. If someone can exhast all my arguments with satisfactory answers or counter arguments then I would have to change my mind and that it can work. Until then my current view that its doomed to failure stays. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Now that is an example of a "civil" post (none / 0) (#148)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 10:39:34 AM PST

	no text k_phactor

	and this is an example of a slashdot poster (none / 0) (#162)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:32:58 PM PST

	--philipm

	Slashdot this, liberal that(more){k_p} (none / 0) (#208)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:24:28 PM PST

	Is that all you can say to anyone? Ive reviewed a number of your posts, and it seems that is the only argument you have. You make this too easy for me. k_phactor

	$50 bucks an hour, I'll send the bill by paypal (none / 0) (#164)
	by philipm on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:44:45 PM PST

	You can find the internet here. After you have finished clicking on stuff, please go back and READ the article making sure to click on the links, especially the tv one, and the driver's licences one. To answer your points directly: practical? ---- yes, absolutely - see all the examples of much harder things to license. how do they intend to prevent crime? ----- Here you again show your criminal liberal tendencies. See law, lawyer, police, last sentence of my previous post. why am I (PotatoError) a liberal? ----- Because you are midless and have poor badly thought out opinions - see your post for examples. I have many mythical liberal arguments ----- where? just let me at them! The idea of internet licensing is brilliant and once in a generation. Oh, and we are almost there - they already have it - its called ISP fee. And what's more the ISPs already have regulations to ban abuse of the internet. They just need to enforce them and revoke licences. --philipm

	some questions for you -reformatted easier to read (none / 0) (#191)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:48:45 AM PST

	Accidently had HTML selected so it wasnt paragraphed. Do you understand that a large group of internet users will actively oppose the new regulations and will spend their time making sure compilers and other unnessesarily banned programs are actively available online? If the basic way of obtaining a license is an interview then how do you intend to prevent such people from gaining licenses through simple deception? Do you intend to block licenses from people who know too much about computing? Or from people who dont know enough? Do you intend to block off US internet access to the the rest of the world completely? If not, then for example, how would you prevent a site in Russia from distributing compilers? Or prevent me in the UK from aiding my US friends of obtaining various compilers or allowing them to use my machine as a proxy so they can access blocked sites? If you intend to place a license ID number into the TCP/IP stack then how would you prevent hackers from simply spoofing this number to pretend to be someone else? like what is already done with spoofing ip host addresses. How do you intend to regulate every site on the internet? 100s of new sites are created every hour and checking them all is virtually impossible. Then how will you check the existing approved sites to make sure they havent recently included illegal material? How do you intend to prevent compilers and 'hacker programs' being sent via email in encrypted form or disguised as something else? How do you intend to prevent such illegal material being sent via IRC or using a messenger service such as MSN or using hundreds of other obsure methods? How do you intend to ban compilers, debuggers and encryption tools from certain groups of people when these can be easily distributed online? How do you intend to prevent the distribution of encryption tools when the algorithms are well known. Do you intend to begin an information suppression? Do you intend to only allow people to use compilers at secure locations such as universities and buisnesses? If so, what happens to programmers being able to learn and work at home? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	huh? (none / 0) (#219)
	by philipm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:51:56 PM PST

	None of your points have anything to do with the article which was about internet licensing which AOL has implemented already. You are obviously disturbed and wish my advice on how you can avoid getting caught committing the criminal activity that you have become addicted to. What is all this talk of compilers? Certain kinds of mentally unstable people should obviously not be allowed to use them, but what does that have to do with a license to shop on Aol? I'm sorry. I have more ethical standards than to give you advice on how to commit crime. I must remind you that liberalism is the last refuge on the incompetent. Think before you post. --philipm

	huh to you too (none / 0) (#231)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:09:09 AM PST

	I gave you some arguments as to why the articles idea of a new internet couldnt practically work. As you didnt put up any counter arguments or answers I will assume that you have none and accept that the whole concept of internet licensing is unworkable. You dont have to give me ideas - thinking of ways to get round security and hack systems is not ethically wrong. There are lots of companies out there who do the same thing and get paid heaps for it. You can only know how secure something is by getting people to try breaking in. Every fault you find you patch up. But that is not possible with this new internet idea as the faults are already obvious and the authors of the ideas wont even attempt to think of ways to patch them up. In fact they wont even listen. Whats all this about AOL? its not the only ISP in america and who cares about an AOL shopping license? its not exactly the internet regulation we feared. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	no you didn't (5.00 / 1) (#248)
	by philipm on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:59:52 PM PST

	You are like a prisoner on death row in Texas. You can appeal to the judge all you want but sooner or later Texas needs to meet its quota. >>thinking of ways to get round security and hack >>systems is not ethically wrong. Right...... And telling this joke is not ethically wrong either: What is the difference between a pizza and a [censored by the editors - this joke was too controversial] Frankly, if you can't understand how the internet works, maybe AOL SHOULD revoke your license. --philipm

	sorry im lost (none / 0) (#253)
	by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:27:05 AM PST

	just what are you arguing for? DOnt see what its got to do with the texan law system or a joke about a pizza. Actually I own AOL. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	This site is so bad (none / 0) (#117)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:45:23 AM PST

	As if you need a license to develop software, sorry I don't need an MCSE to develop anything with. The only thing I need is to download software like python or gcc. And nice poll: Internet Licenses - An Idea whose time has come - A necessary evil - Not perfect but the best solution we have at the present time - Not enough, we need more restrictions on net usage How about an option saying that it isn't necessary at all. Your options there are rediculous.

	You Sir, I agree with 100% <nt>{k_p} (none / 0) (#126)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:30:56 AM PST

	No Text k_phactor

	Damn, what a good idea! (none / 0) (#129)
	by iconoclast on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:50:45 AM PST

	Okay, so we're "protecting our children from the very real dangers of the unregulated Internet." Would you mind explaining to me just what exactly those dangers are? How would these 'dangers' compare with watching countless murders on TV, or walking down your street at night? And while were at it, let's lock the doors on libraries and schools too! Hey, pass the Big Brother posters and the stapler.

	Good idea (none / 0) (#214)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:42:02 PM PST

	Has the FBI issued a warrent for Goldilock's arrest yet?

	You people make me sick! (none / 0) (#132)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:27:58 AM PST

	You morons are like those liberals who are hell bent on regulating every freaking aspect of peoples lives. You seriously need to do some thinking before you post the shit that comes out of your mouth. There will never be a push to require people to be liscensed to use the internet because people will view it as the goverment and liberal new-jerk reactionaries like yourselves going to the exterme like you always do and will not have anything to do with it.

	Sounds Like you have No Idea (none / 0) (#134)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:01:09 AM PST

	Restructuring the TCP\IP protocol.and the three way hand shake.. HAHA!! what did you go to the dictionary and look up some words that are computer related to throw , randomly , into your article? An internet liscence? now that is funny. You know it's people like you that would want the society running around with cameras stuck up their ar**es but of course this would all be for our benefiet. Sigh.. I pitty you........What century are you from? XCoyote

	Whatever happened to free speech? (none / 0) (#137)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:43:21 AM PST

	Limiting access to the internet effectively counters the right to have access to information we desire. Living in the United States or Canada, we have a right to learn, we have a right to access information we deem useful or interesting. That is the reason the Internet came to be. As for porn sites, consider what the Internet Economy would be like if they didn't exist? The Internet IS PORN. Porn sites block access to anyone under 18, so what is there to worry about? Sure there are sites that give away passwords to these sites, but you don't need a site to find passwords, only an adult willing to help. Chatrooms are populated with millions of young teenagers whose only reason to access the Internet is to chat with people halfway across the planet. What's wrong with that? Do I really need a license to TALK? Do I really need a license to share my thoughts with someone who might be interested? Basically enforcing a license system for Internet access is simply violation of our rights. We have a right to this information. If the internet wasn't there, the only difference would be that it would take more time to find the information. Anything you find on the internet already exists in book form, and nobody enforces a license for reading, except for porn. In the internet's case, porn is already limited. Sites require proof of age, credit card numbers, etc. So when will we be enforcing a license system to access the library?

	A few comments (none / 0) (#138)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:54:30 AM PST

	Making laws, introducing them MAKES more problems than ever, Hackers are the only reason why the net is ALIVE, Hackers brought everything into the net. If i remember correctly, ARPA-NET was being testing be armies, hackers are the ones who introduced computing. Depending on how you define hacker, a is a person who wants to increase his/her learning, the constantly want to learn an improve their skills. Introducing licsencing will cause OUTBURST's of computer things. It is better to leave the net the way it is, you'll probably find that if you are introducing laws etc, that you'll find that hackers will go major underground. groups will go underground and get together. Everytime you bring out a patch, its cracked. This is how i see it, if all these 'did' come into action, 'hackers' will get more messed up than ever, the people who are defined are 'newbies' will get abused, you prolly find 'hackers' leaching onto their next door neighbours T1,T3 connection. How can people who own websites, improve security of there site? they have to learn ways of breaking into it. Lastly, i dont think that it would be making the net a better place if people had to pay for a liscence to use open source software, people dont like having to pay for stuff that costs £100 - £300. People like Open source software, Majority of websites are on apache, which works really well with linux. Linux is really good for setting up as a dedicated server, as for windows, its rubish. I think that you will find that alot of websites will go down the drain.

	Alot of websites will go down the drain (none / 0) (#215)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:46:21 PM PST

	Yup, this one will, it's run on Open Source Software.

	Using a PC and Developing Software? (none / 0) (#140)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 09:01:20 AM PST

	AFAIK you do not have to have a license to do these activities, however I would support a blanket single class license to cover internet use. Mind you for the most part of AOL users they would have trouble passing an IQ test, let alone an internet license...

	Education would be better (none / 0) (#152)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:19:04 PM PST

	If for one second anyone suggests that "what they don't know, won't hurt them", their wrong... Regulating end-users won't work. Especially on a worldwide scale. In presenting your case, you provided sample links that point to the very things that YOU want to be regulated. However, what one can't find on the net they can just as easily go to a book/video store and buy it right off the shelf ( The Anarchists Cookbook for example ). Your objections to Open Source are noted... But almost everyone fails to realize that it's Closed Source software (such as MS Windows ) that hackers use and target their malicious code ( over 52000 viruses and worms for Windows as compared to a few 10s for Linux ). MS would like for hackers not to publish information on security flaws, but then any normal user connected to the net would never know whether or not there is a malicious hacker taking advantage of their PC/information until it was too late. Whether or not any of the information available on the net will be used for illegal/malicious purposes, isn't going to be solved by regulation. Kids still find access to guns ( that they use to kill their classmates ). Kids still find ways to get their hands on pornographic magazines/videos ( I won't say what they use it for ). Despite regulations on hunting, whaling/fishing we're still driving some species to extinction. We put alarms on cars, and the cars still get stolen. Regulations didn't solve the problems, lack of education caused the problems, and better education will allow parents to control where their browsers can surf. Better education will dictate how information from anywhere will be used, or discarded. Better education will prevent disasters like September 11th from ever happening again.

	The failure of your logic. (none / 0) (#167)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 04:03:30 PM PST

	This article is exactly the kind of thing that your licensing would prevent. So, if your licensing scheme were in place, you would not have been able to post this article. Now, you should divide by zero.

	Let's see... (none / 0) (#175)
	by budlite on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:46:35 PM PST

	Need a license for... > Watching TV Only in some countries. > Using a PC Not compulsory > Developing software Not compulsory either People have embraced the internet simply because they're getting tired of having content forced at them by means of TV, radio and printed media - with the internet one can choose what one wants to watch/read/listen to, and with unmetered access for a low cost can do so at little cost to themselves. If your so-called "solution" to the problem of people being able to view illegal or potentially harmful material were to come into play then people would soon lose interest, because the internet becomes like the media that net users have grown away from - they are not allowed to view whatever content they choose. Plus there's the impracticalities of having to use net monitoring software. Much of it, while effective for those with children, still has problems, for example blocking sex education sites on the grounds that they may contain pictures of people's more intimate body parts or verbal content relating to those. In a sense we already are paying a license to use the internet. Like the TV in Britain we incur costs for out net usage - to watch TV you must buy a license. To use the net, you must pay a monthly/yearly subscription and/or phonecall charges. I'd also like to question your ideas of restricting the connection type and software that net users can use. Why restrict people with your Class C license to Windows and Internet Explorer (and specific versions at that!)? It doesn't matter what OS and browser one uses - it's still possible to view all the same illegal/harmful content whatever browser is used. It's possible to carry out attacks on websites from any operating system - if someone wanted to they could easily write a small program to DDOS a server from a Palm or WinCE/PocketPC handheld. And Net-unfriendly OSes like Linux and BSD? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. They are just as friendly as any other OS for net access - the way of working is exactly the same as for Windows - install hardware, install necessary drivers for hardware, install and use software to interface with drivers and negotiate connection, install and use browsers/newsreaders/mail clients etc. The only difference is the mechanism through which each of those goals is accomplished. You also attempt to apply meaningless analogies to justify your ideas. Comparing it to driving on a motorway, say, does not work. Driving on a motorway is an activity that poses a direct threat to ones life - surfing the net is not. It poses about as much threat as watching TV - you might argue that a child watching TV is not at risk of viewing "harmful" (and I challenge you to give a coherent and well-thought-out definition of that word in this context) material - that's not true. It's all too easy for a child to wake up in the night and sneak downstairs and watch TV. At night is generally when most material considered harmful to kids is broadcast, for example pornography, extreme violence, coarse language. There are no built-in mechanisms to shield a child from those things - unlike the internet, where significant numbers of porn sites, say, restrict access to paying members who can verify their age. Your idea simply doesn't work. Added to this it's a recipe for the downfall of the only truly free information exchange.

	BeOS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! (none / 0) (#179)
	by NAWL on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:20:47 PM PST

	Who the hell cares about BeOS? Palm has made no concrete plans to revive POS. It's dead, bury it. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I'd prefer simply enforcing digital certs (5.00 / 1) (#180)
	by KingAzzy on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:40:53 PM PST

	With the ever increasing flood of spams and worms, I've been thinking lately that a mandatory requirement of digital certificates issued by a trusted authority (for free of course) would be a good start to bolstering accountability and responsbility on the Net. Once proliferated, SMTP servers should reject any incoming mail that is not signed. Who would be the trusted root authority? Well obviously it would not be a commercial entity such as Verisign .. a government body? Why not? The time has come, imo.

	huh? (none / 0) (#196)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:43:52 AM PST

	I thought you lot were saying Internet Key Exchange was a hacker invention earlier - now you say you want to use it to secure the internet. This works in theory but hackers could simply steal peoples certificates of their machines and if the certificate listing for the entire internet population ever got released it would be utter disaster. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Types of licence (none / 0) (#198)
	by Mad Monk on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:50:51 AM PST

	Although I think that it would be pointless to prevent people from using systems that they can't use anyway, I think that licences could exist for sites, and viewers could give a quality rating. For example, appeciation of high quality porn could be promoted over slapdash stuff that appeals to the Proletariate; porn sites could be graded positively for artistic use of rope etcetera, and this would help to bring down their rating, so that the working classes could be educated, much as the old BBC used to broadcast high quality material, which raised the viewer's quality threashold, thus increasing everyone's well-being. The issue of censorship is old hat: for the new millenium, we need to be looking to quality control and discrimination.

	Why the Internet isnt like Driving or Shooting (none / 0) (#199)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:52:00 AM PST

	Children and people who cant drive will cause accidents on roads. That why driving licenses exist. Children and people who cant use guns could kill or injure someone. Thats why gun licenses exist. Children and people who cant use the internet - cant cause any harm at all. Thats why a license is not needed. Or maybe you are arguing that for the first time in history a license should be imposed which is only given to the people who cant use something? Maybe you suggest that only people who will use the intenet sensibly, will be given licenses. But then how can you tell that in a simple interview? How about we also interview everyone in the country so we can find and arrest all the rapists? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Valid point{k_p aka "slashdot liberal"}& (none / 0) (#209)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:29:05 PM PST

	no text k_phactor

	Works for me... (none / 0) (#205)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:13:17 AM PST

	...at least it would make sure that no one that frequents or believes anything that comes from this site has a shot in hell of being allowed online.

	"An Idea Whose Time Has Come" (none / 0) (#237)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 11:46:58 AM PST

	Sometimes I sincerely doubt whether, for most of you at least, English is a first language. An idea isn't a person, so why, therefore, do you refer to it as such? Well, you bunch of cripples?

	I didn't fight in WWII (none / 0) (#241)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:12:34 PM PST

	so that whiny overprivileged kids like you could tell me I'm too old to use the Internet. Son, I'd like you to say that to this ex-Marines face. Even at 78 I'll still wipe the floor with your undoubtedly overweight ass. I bet you couldn't do even one push-up correctly. For such an allegedly conservative site you sure show an amazing lack of respect for the people who fought and died to preserve democracy and to save the world from Hitler. Whats next? Are you going to be a censor and delete this U.S. miltary veterans comment? I wonder if this site is really closer to the ideals of our Constitution than to that of governments that censor speech, like it claims.

	Good idea... (none / 0) (#258)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 06:44:13 AM PST

	Good idea...maybe the internet could become free of morons like yourself.

	Quit While You're Behind (none / 0) (#279)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:42:03 PM PST

	Sir, Please give up talking anymore about this. You are rapidly becoming a net celebrity. Jerry Lewis, I'm afraid, not Jerry Falwell. I ran across your article a few weeks ago and sent it to some friends. It's come back via a message board that I just joined. Please. You'll just make it worse for yourself. You don't know what you're talking about, no matter how much you think you do.

	This is so stupid (none / 0) (#280)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:00:02 AM PST

	Why is it people want to regulate everything "for our kids protection". Excuse me, but what happened to parent responsibility? Isn't that what this site is about (or supposed to be)? It should be the parent's choice as to wheather their child gets online. Not regulated by some license.

	They need the advertisement, so That wont happen (none / 0) (#282)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 13th, 2002 at 07:46:21 AM PST

	if they do that, companys lose clients, etc. etc. they get no money, .so your plan goes in the garbage!

	Seriously, this is a pisstake site right? (none / 0) (#286)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 24th, 2002 at 05:23:36 PM PST

	some of the shite uve come out with on here and links every other line to something rather pointless, this HAS to be a joke, doesnt it? if not then im really rather worried that people are actually having thought patterns where they think that those points proposed by the author are in fact in any way true. if its a joke then pld j00 :) nice site, made me laugh anyway if you are somehow actually serious about this then your right wing weirdos

	It's men that are the problem (none / 0) (#287)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:14:47 AM PST

	Many men have contributed to the development of the internet, and I don't want to minimize their efforts. However, most of the problems you point out are symptomatic of the testosterone-driven need by human males to show off, destroy, and denigrate women. On the other hand, women, who now make up a majority of internet users, use it to communicate, improve the lives of others, and to share information. Thus, anyone applying for a B or C-class license should have to prove their gender (by birth certificate or other), and regulators should give women a preference. I know this idea will be upsetting to some, but anyone who thinks we can solve the Internet problem without taking gender into account is fooling themselves.

	What is wrong with you people? (none / 0) (#288)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:55:29 AM PST

	Why does everyone want the goverment to controll every aspects of our lives? The internet is one of the few things that is still largely unregulated. A licence to use the internet is dumb.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.