×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vint Cerf Says It's Every Machine For Itself

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-works-for-google dept.

The Internet 82

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian has an interesting story on Vint Cerf, the 'father of the internet,' in which he says there's no silver bullet for scammers, spammers and criminals running zombie networks and porn-to-porn file swapping because 'the internet was designed that way.' Cerf adds, 'Like every medium, the internet can be abused. When we think about it, we can commit fraud locally and internationally using the telephone system and postal service.' However, Cerf is also convinced that it's the internet's openness — in allowing people with new ideas to do their thing without getting anyone's permission — that is the main source of its power, and he is against the idea of a two-tier internet with a trusted, controlled 'overnet' for commercial and business use, and an 'undernet' where anything goes. 'My bias right now tends to be "It's every man for himself" — you need to be suspicious whether you're inside the trusted cloud or not, and when it fails, the house of cards tends to collapse.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

82 comments

Man != Machine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225479)

Or has he already crossed that line?! It would explain soooo much.

Re:Man != Machine (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225665)

See? Even Vint Cerf says the Internet was designed for porn. I feel very exonerated now.

Re:Man != Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25229417)

He also said "cloud", which makes me want to punch someone.

AC Says It's Every First Poster For Himself (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225515)

the first posting is serious business folks

don't get caught in the crossfire

you have been warned, make your time

Too late, gated communities exist, and always have (5, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225541)

The internet isn't totally free, never was, and never will be.

When corporations have a firewall, they are creating a "gated community" where they provide additional restrictions on acceptable behavior in order to create a more predictable environment. This is OK, this is normal, and this is the "Overnet" that the summary speaks of.

This is *always* the case. In my household, we follow additional rules of the household that aren't required on the street. My house is, therefore, a sort of "gated community" where not "anything goes". This is human nature, and will apply to virtually any product with wide acceptance.

Firewalls, NAT, differing connection speeds, and many other factors provide different Internet "neighborhoods" with different rules of acceptability and feasibility. You don't want youtube videos on a 19.2 Kbps modem. You don't play 1st person shooters over a satellite internet connection, no matter how "fast" it is. You don't do virus research at work. You don't host a bank of servers on your home DSL connection.

All of these are limitations. Get used to it.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225611)

Your reply is somewhat akin to someone saying that we should keep free speech since it's a net positive, and you replying that free speech doesn't exist because you don't allow your children to swear. He's arguing that we need to avoid systemic overnets and undernets. Roping off your own network with different rules doesn't have anything to do with TFA.

TFA wants to avoid having these things built into the entire internet from end to end, which is what some people say we need. Patchwork restrictions and rules are to be expected and encouraged where appropriate, but having it built in from end to end is what we're talking about.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228695)

"TFA wants to avoid having these things built into the entire internet from end to end"

In a way it's already built in, you might only start to notice it once we run out of IPv4 addresses. Only an elite 4+ billion are peers.

Then you'll see who really gets to distribute media.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (2, Insightful)

Paul Pierce (739303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225657)

Good points you make, but I wouldn't say that is the same thing as the two-tier internet. Those are individual business and personal decisions.

Those communities don't change the internet in anyway for the rest of us. If I choose to not have internet at all, am I then creating another 'gated' community?

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225679)

You do realize Vint Cerf is referring directly to the Net Neutrality debate, right?

I would hope the description of a tiered Internet would make that apparent.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25226293)

LANs != The Internet

All connected LANs + everything in between them + the connection itself = The Internet

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25226513)

You don't host a bank of servers on your home DSL connection.

Speak for yourself!

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228287)

quite the contrary, are the streets less "free" because we have some places that are stores, some are houses, Some are bars, some are parks, etc. As long as in the public street you obey the least common decency nobody bothers you from place to place and you move more or less freely. The Internet is like the highway system. Once you are on it, you can go where ever you want.

Network speeds are akin to automobiles.. you have to meet a minimum auto requirement to travel on highways... you need different requirements to haul 50 tons of steel or drive really fast. Different tasks cost more, just like carrying greater internet traffic costs more. IP and DNS are akin to property addresses. Other than identifying a particular "neighborhood" you might belong in they don't restrict what you can do with the internet.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25230321)

You don't play 1st person shooters over a satellite internet connection, no matter how "fast" it is.

I beg to differ.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25242437)


Are you that dude from Alaska I play against on SnipersParadise? Seriously, there's one guy (forget his nick, been a few weeks) and he has >1000 ms pings. Gotta give it to him for tenacity.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | more than 5 years ago | (#25230445)

The internet isn't totally free, never was, and never will be.

When corporations have a firewall, they are creating a "gated community" where they provide additional restrictions on acceptable behavior in order to create a more predictable environment. This is OK, this is normal, and this is the "Overnet" that the summary speaks of.

This is *always* the case. In my household, we follow additional rules of the household that aren't required on the street. My house is, therefore, a sort of "gated community" where not "anything goes". This is human nature, and will apply to virtually any product with wide acceptance.

Firewalls, NAT, differing connection speeds, and many other factors provide different Internet "neighborhoods" with different rules of acceptability and feasibility. You don't want youtube videos on a 19.2 Kbps modem. You don't play 1st person shooters over a satellite internet connection, no matter how "fast" it is. You don't do virus research at work. You don't host a bank of servers on your home DSL connection.

All of these are limitations. Get used to it.

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25231439)

You don't do virus research at work

I work for McAfee you insensitive clod!

Re:Too late, gated communities exist, and always h (1)

aetherworld (970863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25231575)

When corporations have a firewall, they are creating a "gated community" where they provide additional restrictions on acceptable behavior in order to create a more predictable environment.

Said environment is not "the Internet", though.

The internet isn't totally free, never was, and never will be.

You might be right about the "will not be" part but currently, the Internet is, in general terms, totally free.

Vint Cerf: senile father of the internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225565)

Entirely responsible for the unmitigated disaster that is IPv6. All round vain and unpleasant person. Now busy wanking about interplanetary networks while IPv6 continues to sit and stink largely because of his bullheaded management of the committee. Hasn't done a thing of use at Google, other than to try to end the much loved "testing on the toilette" institution, one of the few brights spots in the dismal life of servitude for your average Google peon.

Mod me down, but this is just the plain truth.

Re:Vint Cerf: senile father of the internet (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#25227445)

to end the much loved "testing on the toilette" institution, one of the few brights spots in the dismal life of servitude for your average Google peon.

Could some average Google peon please elaborate? /. waits with bated breath.

Re:Vint Cerf: senile father of the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25256189)

He''s not entirely responsible for IPv6 but he certainly has tried very hard to push for its adoption despite knowing intellectually that it is too small a change to IPv4 to make it worthwhile, and that the problem it solves is only one of the serious scalability problems in IPv4.

He is also largely responsible for institutionalizing uneconomic distractions such as IP over ATM, IP over MPLS (over ATM), and other utterly unparsimonious approaches to scaling for traffic volume.

Cerf may be a pleasant boss, he certainly is good at getting press attention, and he may even have some managerial skills, but either he has never really directly been involved in deploying at a useful scale essentially any of the technologies he has propounded over the years since the mid 1970s, or he is just very good at drawing the wrong conclusions from early data acquired from small-scale experience.

That is, he makes a persuasive case for why something ought to work reasonably well in practice as usage increases, but he does not make a good case.

Senility? No, I don't think so. I think it's more that he is good at writing down initial ideas, and good in committees that are mixes of technologists and financial people, and does not recognize or admit his own shortcomings with respect to projecting his ideas out to large scale deployments, or recognizing that the market for protocols on the Internet have rejected many of his ideas precisely because they did not scale economically.

Gated Communities (2, Insightful)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225567)

Both Heaven and Hell have gates. Not sure which one I'd prefer. Have to let you know.

Re:Gated Communities (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225641)

Not sure which one I'd prefer

Go for Hell, much less exclusive. Heaven's HOA really rides your ass about the rules.

Re:Gated Communities (1)

ivandavidoff (969036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225659)

Well, the sign on one says "Abandon Hope", and a sign on the other says "Not Yours". So really there is no choice.

Off topicly, I thought "Both Heaven and Hell have Gates" was about Bill.

Re:Gated Communities (3, Funny)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225783)

Both Heaven and Hell have gates. Not sure which one I'd prefer...

We got hell from Gates on Earth and I didn't like it... but that's done now.

Re:Gated Communities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25229197)

Innocent question: Are you talking about Gates that have Windows on them?

Porn-to-porn? (2, Funny)

solafide (845228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225601)

What's porn-to-porn fileswapping? We know what the submitter had on his mind.

Re:Porn-to-porn? (3, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225709)

its like regular file swapping - but with twice the porn!

Re:Porn-to-porn? (2, Funny)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25226251)

Twice the porn? My god... that's like, 120% of the bytes being filled with porn...

Re:Porn-to-porn? (2, Funny)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228539)

On old modems, I suppose you could get 112.5% of the bytes filled with porn if your modem misuses the parity bit as an extra porn bit. I've been thinking about RS-232 all day.

Re:Porn-to-porn? (1)

mcclure (617150) | more than 5 years ago | (#25229019)

Shouldn't that be 114.3%? (7 out of the 8 bits = 100%)

Re:Porn-to-porn? (1)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25229553)

Ah, you're probably right for old modems. I've been thinking in terms of 8 data bits plus one parity bit, which is the default for a lot of things these days.

I'm impressed that somebody actually did the calculations on that.

Re:Porn-to-porn? (1)

mcclure (617150) | more than 5 years ago | (#25231423)

Impressed? I'm ashamed! :)
I resisted for a while but my inner geek got the better of me...

Re:Porn-to-porn? (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225903)

What's porn-to-porn fileswapping?

You show her yours and she (or more probably Stone Phillips) shows you a jpeg of some hot 15 year old.

Re:Porn-to-porn? (2, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25226641)

We may or may not know just what the submitter had on his mind when he suggested porn-to-porn fileswapping, but I'll be we known what he had in his hand!

Re:Porn-to-porn? (2, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228717)

It's not the submitter - the phrase is in the article.

Guardian is pretty tabloidish.

Huh? (1)

hampton (209113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225617)

What's porn-to-porn file swapping?

Do I have to have porn running at both ends in order to exchange files?

Re:Huh? (1)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228551)

If you're using something like BitTorrent, where you can upload and download at the same time, there's going to be pornography flying every which way.

Re:Huh? (1)

Viperpete (1261530) | more than 5 years ago | (#25230463)

That opens up the possibility of Pr0n data collision.

Idea for an experiment! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25233255)

If we could simulate these porn collisions that naturally occur in cyberspace in a pornography-accelerating device, say a "Large Hardon Collider," we could observe the particles that result from the collisions and possibly even find the elusive Huge Bosom! Let me just do some calculations to make sure it couldn't accidentally create a Back Hole that could consume the planet...okay it seems any Back Holes which may open up could never be big enough or stay open long enough to pose a threat, it should be safe.

Vint Cerf: Mr Obvious (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225669)

Hey, Vint, that Guaridan hack is here.

Oh, right.

Hallo Mr Inventor of the Internet, what've ya got to say?

Well, uh, nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Locks are for your friends, cause your enemies have pick tools.
Damn straight I invented the Internet, not that Mr Green, I mean Gore.
Etc.

Nothing to see here. Sadly.

Silver bullets would be great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225681)

Find a spammer, and put a silver bullet in his head. Everyone celebrates.

Sounds great, but... (5, Insightful)

barnyjr (1259608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225691)

Yeah it would be great if it were "every man for himself" and everyone made sure to protect themselves. However, that idea went out the window when the internet became main-stream. If everyone that used the internet were tech-savvy enough to protect themselves, this would be a non-issue. So do we need to tell all of the older people, children, and computer-idiots that use the internet that they're just out of luck since they don't understand the complications in using such an open medium? We could, but I don't think that's exactly fair.

To me, it's the equivalent of saying, "OK you're of age to drive on the nation's interstate system. So we're not going to put up any speed limits or signs/signals/regulatory devices. It's every man for himself... good luck."

Unfortunately, educating people isn't going to cut it. And I wish it was. I'm all for putting banks and anything related to finances on a more-secure, separate network. Unfortunately, we can't rely on end-users to protect themselves.

Re:Sounds great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225801)

It's more like "Ok, you're of age to swim at the nation's beaches. So we're not going to hire any lifeguards or put it any shark-nets. It's every man for himself... good luck."

Re:Sounds great, but... (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225895)

Unfortunately, we can't rely on end-users to protect themselves.

no we cant. but it isn't our job to protect them. Tiered internet probably wouldn't solve most of these problems anyway.

Re:Sounds great, but... (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225911)

I remember the last time I suggested that there should be some sort of net license that I was shouted down for being elitest, but really. Most of the problems we have with cybercrime are directly related to people that access the web without taking appropriate precautions. Were people to actually know what they were doing the problems would be a lot easier to fix.

Re:Sounds great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25238697)

the problem is that those who would issue such a license would actually propagate 'dont commit cybercrime' scare tactics in place of 'this is how cybercrime works and how to protect yourself from it.'

Re:Sounds great, but... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25229779)

Warning: Automotive analogies.

OK you're of age to drive on the nation's interstate system. So we're not going to put up any speed limits or signs/signals/regulatory devices. It's every man for himself... good luck.

Most ISPs do, in fact, have (anti)spam policies, among other things. The signs, signals, and regulatory devices are there -- for the basic stuff.

But let me put this another way: In my state, Driver's Education is required. A quiz is also required to upgrade a learner's permit to a real license, once you're of age for one.

That's not always the case everywhere, but some basic competence is expected.

Then, once you're out there on the highway, it's pretty much every car for itself. If you get hit, sure, you might be able to sue the guy -- which also assumes he doesn't simply hit-and-run. Other than that, you have to deal with people being assholes every day, and you can't really trust anyone other than yourself to keep yourself from smacking into other people.

But, given your example below, it seems like the more fundamental problems on the Internet are even easier to solve than the fundamental problems on the road. You see, on the road, it might not be your fault -- someone else could actually crash into you. But on the Internet, if you fell for a phishing scheme, it's more like crashing into a telephone pole -- you've got no one to blame but yourself.

I'm all for putting banks and anything related to finances on a more-secure, separate network.

How, exactly, would it be more secure without educating end-users?

We already have SSL, with a few added layers of verification on top of that. If a user can't be bothered to so much as check a fucking URL, what makes you think they'll even know this other network exists?

And if they do, what makes you think the cute little BonziBuddy 2.0 (Now with MySpace!) crapware they installed won't grab their account info via a keylogger? What makes you think they'll know not to trust emails claiming to be from their bank -- given that many banks tell you not to trust such emails now?

Sorry, but protecting uneducated people from themselves is not enough to give up my freedoms. That's a bit like saying we can't have crayons in schools, because some kids like to eat them.

Re:Sounds great, but... (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#25231203)

To me, it's the equivalent of saying, "OK you're of age to drive on the nation's interstate system. So we're not going to put up any speed limits or signs/signals/regulatory devices. It's every man for himself... good luck."To me, it's the equivalent of saying, "OK you're of age to drive on the nation's interstate system. So we're not going to put up any speed limits or signs/signals/regulatory devices. It's every man for himself... good luck."

Recent experiments suggest this would actually make things safer. Without all that signage and law people are forced to take responsibilty and exercise their judgement to drive safely.

Re:Sounds great, but... (1)

steelersteve13 (1372165) | more than 5 years ago | (#25235925)

"If everyone that used the internet were tech-savvy enough to protect themselves"...I wouldn't have a job. In phone/tech support. Half my calls are from people who have problems that my co. tells me don't apply to what I'm supposed to do.

Only the Vint Cerf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225729)

Has made the pilgrimage to undernet, and he has returned half man, half..... something else.

Overnet and Undernet (1)

MisterSquirrel (1023517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225767)

I'm going to connect a disk array to the "undernet" and call it the Panty-RAID. Dare I predict the Slashdot headline when the first virus hits the undernet? Why not: "Undernet Gets First Wedgie"

Re:Overnet and Undernet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25225983)

I'm going to make hardware for it, and call it UnderWare.

I hate to say it, but.. duh? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225787)

A few of the problems with the Internet stem from the fact that we trust computers. We trust that they'll do what we tell them, when in fact, they may not be receiving instructions only from us. We trust that they are who they say they are, when spoofing is fairly simple.

The rest of the problems with the Internet have to do with the fact that people are naturally trusting of others. I trust that someone sending me mail isn't going to do something bad. I trust that you're not trying to scam me. The human condition is something that is quite difficult to address technologically.

Goldy, Silvery, Irony (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25225853)

...no silver bullet for scammers, spammers and criminals

Maybe we should fall back to the lead variety.

So says anonymous internet tough guy Sponge Bath.

Overnet and an undernet? (2, Interesting)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25226059)

I hate to be cynical but, I think have simply an overnet and an undernet is simply too broad to secure properly. To target broad majority of commercial applications would leave the overnet too insecure and to secure it properly would leave it restrictive to get anything done commercially.

come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25226121)

"Trusted cloud"? Really?

*sigh* I guess it's to late now.

Hello "Cloud", I don't like you, but you won't go away. Please take a seat in the back row, there might still be place between "Vlog" and "Web 2.0"

Ah yes, nothing worse (3, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25226521)

... you need to be suspicious whether you're inside the trusted cloud or not, and when it fails, the house of cards tends to collapse.

There's nothing worse then when your cards are in the clouds and the house falls down. Was Vint a partial inspiration for Zapp Brannigan by any chance?

If we hit that bull's eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Thus Spake Vint Cerf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25226693)

Ok. This is Vint Cerf's opinion, but it's also stating the obvious.

Sure any medium is open to abuse, but it's the "recipient pays" aspect of the internet that renders it so much more likely to be abused, be successfully abused, and allows the abusers to get away.

Now I'll go read the article to see if it has anything interesting to say.

FrList ps0t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25226759)

fear the reaper Usenet is roughly you dOwn. It was

Re:FrList ps0t (1)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228659)

end to end architecture tendrils everywhere
Usenet and Web and mAil malware
pathogens aren't going away
they're here to stay
yesterday and tomorrow and today
fear the reaper roughly, usenEt
we got to meet this roughly, you bet
fuck it all, we're the internet!

(Was that what you were trying to say, AC? This was originally supposed to be free verse, but it started rhyming for some reason. At least it doesn't have good meter; thank God [wigu.com] for that.)

end-to-end argument has two sides (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25226821)

I'm glad to see Cerf tacitly admit that there's really two sides to the end-to-end argument (no pun intended). There may be reasons to trade off security for openness, but it's important to recognize there is a trade-off and that the end-to-end design isn't a perfect solution in the real world.

Re:end-to-end argument has two sides (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228175)

Trading off security [openbsd.org]? The fact of the matter is that security holes are problems whether your competitors and the mafia can exploit them or just your competitors.

data not network (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25227229)

It SHOULD be about data, not the network. Every file, every page, should have metadata listing any number of digital signatures. We should be able to easily see who created the data, who says that person is legit, and whether the data has been tampered with. Then we don't have to worry about the network at all.

If I'm viewing something which is signed by somebody with multiple governments or financial institutions also saying he is real and legit, I want my computer to tell me this guy is real and not a scammer. I also want to see at a glance if the document I'm about to read or program I'm about to open is from someone nobody else is willing to vouch for.

The technology is here, though X.509 needs to be updated to support multiple signatories and to be more flexible generally. It is just a matter of getting OS and browser producers to agree on the protocol and agree to support it.

Re:data not network (3, Insightful)

dragonturtle69 (1002892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25227705)

Every file, every page, should have metadata listing any number of digital signatures. We should be able to easily see who created the data, who says that person is legit, and whether the data has been tampered with.

How would that work with regard to those who want anonymity? One of the strengths of the Internet is the ability to not be me. I may whistle-blow and not put my family in danger. Without a doubt, there would be far few flametards about if everyone had to present identification, but I do not see that gain being worth the loss of writing unpopular things without fear.

Re:data not network (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25229831)

We should be able to easily see who created the data, who says that person is legit, and whether the data has been tampered with.

You've just described SSL.

Granted, it's not about the files -- it's entirely up to the server to ensure which files are sent. But everything else you described is true about the server, so the only thing left is for the server to say whether it thinks the files are legit.

Then we don't have to worry about the network at all.

Not going to address the audacity of that statement itself, but I should point out:

If I'm viewing something which is signed by somebody with multiple governments or financial institutions also saying he is real and legit, I want my computer to tell me this guy is real and not a scammer.

You're talking about a web of trust, which is every bit as difficult to build and maintain as any other network.

Re:data not network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25238799)

Great.. The tech equivalent of cops asking for papers at every intersection. Your totalitarianistic 'solution' is still not as effective as getting users to understand how this stuff happens. Yeah, it's a lot more work, but it's a lot more effective.

Permission is still required (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25227357)

Of course there is the counter example, ICANN, that has for the 11 years of its existence almost always said "no" to people who want to set up completely lawful business to run new top level domains on the net.

vint cerf and stallman think alike... (1)

FreeFuture (1327915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25227699)

with regard to this [slashdot.org] story about Stallman's warning about cloud computing, Vint Cerf seems to strike a similar echo, though from different viewpoints.

Me personally, I'm with them, the more power to me, the better.

Wise Sage Vint is... (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#25228991)

it's the internet's openess: in allowing people with new ideas to do their thing without getting anyone's permission: that is the main source of its power"

I see what he's saying: In an open society, you can't stop the power of the mob...

Genius.

Bring on the undernets! (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25232365)

Oh, the idea of a free-for-all parallel Internet that's considered too dangerous for regular people. Soccer moms and grandparents can hang out in the shiny, filtered overnet and leave the rest alone.

Guess which will have the better content? Everyone will have some vaguely seedy acquaintance who can get anything they want, for the right price. Gibson and Stephenson were only wrong in thinking it would be so far in the future.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...