Beta
×

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!

Do We Need a New Internet?

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the alarmist-or-cassandra dept.

Security 690

Richard.Tao and a number of other readers sent in a NYTimes piece by John Markoff asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced. "...[T]here is a growing belief among engineers and security experts that Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly elusive that the only way to fix the problem is to start over. What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there." A less alarmist reaction to the question was blogged by David Akin: "If you build a new Internet and you want me to get a license to drive on it, sorry. I'm hanging out here in v.1."

cancel ×

690 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

shit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866315)

a nigger just robbed me of my future! That nigger was Barack H Obama.

Absolutley Not (5, Insightful)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866323)

And it isnt really an option either.

No way in hell! (5, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866515)

THIS scares me more than anything... "create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety" Oh yeah right....leave "safety" in charge of some government idiots, or the UN...no thanks!

Re:No way in hell! (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866745)

To quote my main man on the C-Note [wikipedia.org] : "They would trade essential liberty in return for a little temporary safety deserve neither." The B-man was talking about firearms, but it goes for the Intartubes as well.

Re:No way in hell! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866763)

s/They would/They that would/

Re:Absolutley Not (1)

Cally (10873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866591)

My old boss was prone to exclaiming: "Bring me a new choir-boy. This one's burst!" I wonder if that's what happened to the Interweb.

Reality says otherwise. Fight it. (1, Interesting)

Erris (531066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866633)

Corporate and University intranets are already like this. There is no anonymity, privacy, right to use the facilities owned by all and everything is monitored. Prisons are like that too, but no safety is gained. It is your rights that protect you from abuse. No one gives these rights up, they are taken by force. It would be nice if these non free networks protected the rest of us from the Windows cesspool but we are all threatened as by the botnets that fester there, much as we are all threatened by enslaved people in places like China. The lack of freedom and dignity is exactly what makes the world dangerous.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. [the world will not remain] permanently half slave and half free. ... It will become all one thing or all the other.

Fight for your network freedom as if your free press and all your other rights depended on it, because they do. The rest of your freedom and safety fall with your ability to share with and learn from your neighbors.

Warning. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866641)

The user Erris is an Erris sockpuppet. Punish yourself for reading this message.

Why not? (5, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866759)

Whenever I read this kind of stuff I really don't think any of these people get what an "internet" is... Once more with feeling the internet is not a network; it is a network of networks.

Last time your home windows computer went down with a virus, my computer worked fine. Even with the incompetents we have in outsourced IT support, last time your corporate network collapsed under attack, mine didn't. The internet is the cess pool^W^W happy village square where we all meet together. Your own network is not the "internet" and you can run it any way you want; it won't influence the rest of the world. If you cut off the internet it by declaring "a gated community" as the article (you did read the article didn't you?) suggests, you are no longer part of the internet.

Anyone trying to build a "new" internet should be encouraged at the same time as given a gentle education in basic network theory. If it's any good, then enough people will join it that when other particular bits of the internet collapse, they can still continue with their own useful lives. We need this kind of thing. If someone could build a network for their own country which could be relied on for emergency calls and at the same time let me read slashdot that would make a real difference (no BT's "all IP" network doesn't count). Definitely it would have to have some priority mechanism so that my slashdot couldn't get in the way of your emergency stuff; however, there's no way that such a new network can be successful if it can't cope with being connected to the current internet. That would just be security through obscurity and uselessness. Like claiming a computer is secure because it's had concrete poured into it.

Re:Why not? (4, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866831)

Last time your windows computer went down with a virus, I had to install a virus scanner for KMail, not because your viruses were in any way likely to infect my computer, but because there so many of the dammed things in my inbox that I needed something to filter them out so I could find my real mail amongst them.

And your infected Windows computer is the reason why my uninfectable Linux computer gets bombarded with so many ads for fake pills etc.

Re:Why not? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866855)

I vote "No" on the whole "Do we need a new Internet?" question.

Next?

as old ben would say (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866329)

give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

They don't deserve (and won't get) either.

Re:as old ben would say (3, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866471)

Agreed; there's isn't any "gated community" that can't be broken into. It's whether or not the cost/reward decision favors making the effort.

The article is alarmist, here are some quotes,
"Unless we're willing to rethink today's Internet," says Nick McKeown, a Stanford engineer involved in building a new Internet, "we're just waiting for a series of public catastrophes."
"If you're looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon," Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm, said recently.

We are going to get a new Internet, but incrementally. It will continue to be developed, which is what the Standford (and other) researchers are doing.

Re:as old ben would say (3, Insightful)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866541)

Well, the internet is designed to avoid political intervention. So the logical next step is to further decentralise the net and promote wireless mesh networks.

And the worst argument of it all:

"Known as Conficker, it quickly infected more than 12 million computers, ravaging everything from the computer system at a surgical ward in England to the computer networks of the French military."

So lets abandon the free net because of Microsoft's security holes. Great idea.

In my opinion the French military should rather develop its own national operating system.

Re:as old ben would say (4, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866665)

Maybe. Sometimes though, I think a more appropriate response for the French military would be to just give up.

Re:as old ben would say (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866667)

So lets abandon the free net because of Microsoft's security holes. Great idea.

And move towards something even more vulnerable to such attacks. No thanks.

Re:as old ben would say (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866737)

In my opinion the French military should rather develop its own national operating system.

Because as we all know new code is more secure than old code?

Or more secure from not being open? Private? Security through obscurity?

More secure since your average botnet can't infect the machines? Are those really the problem for someone like the military?

Re:as old ben would say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866775)

That a lot less to do with MS security holes than it had to do with dumb people who refuse to turn on automatic updates. That conficker crap came out WELL after a patch was available. If someone on Linux got attacked after a patch was available everyone here would be saying "Linux is great, the user was a dilhole!". Well, the same thing applies here - these folks need to have automatic updates on.

Re:as old ben would say (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866793)

In my opinion the French military should rather develop its own national operating system.

Of course, they could use the Linux kernel. And they could call it 'Maginot [wikipedia.org] Linux'!

*ducking*

Re:as old ben would say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866479)

This is why I am glad things like the Internet were created as a government funded project when there wasn't much interest in it on the private sector. It was allowed to evolve and gradually become what it is. I am happy with the way the internet and wouldn't want to see it change into another cell network. If the private sector, at this point, had it their way the Internet would be one big giant toll booth for content. User content would either be exploited or discouraged, and the right to individual copyright that undermines big media would be quickly quashed on this new Internet.

One thing that should change is the way email is handled. Perhaps using an XMPP dialback model would be able to kill spam or make it more manageable. All other problems are issues separate from the internet. The way the Windows Operating System has behaved for the better part of 2 decades is one problems, as well as the dependence on anti virus programs leaving the user ignorant. Safety is overrated and usually something that should be taught and exercised rather than having a nanny Internet.

Re:as old ben would say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866583)

No, no, no!

I could take Hans not shooting first, but this is too far!

Harden up (4, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866339)

Fucking cry babies who literally want to trade liberty for security.

Re:Harden up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866415)

More like control freaks who want to take away other people's liberty convincing them that it's for their own good.

Re:Harden up (1)

risinganger (586395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866659)

I'd wager if you were to look at all the people wanting this that you'd find it was a combination of the two types. Regardless of which type the moron John Markoff belongs to, the idea is destined (hopefully) to go the way as most crackpot ideas coming from either the US or UK governments.

Re:Harden up (1, Insightful)

William Baric (256345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866621)

If the only way for you to have liberty is with being anonymous, then obviously you don't live in a free country. Hiding is not freedom.

Re:Harden up (5, Informative)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866671)

The option to be anonymous is liberty.

Closed ballots and open democracy go hand in hand.

Re:Harden up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866683)

Actually, I consider it one of the most important freedoms. It's what you do when you are drowned out by the power of your enemies. Whistleblowing protection is new and still woefully incomplete.. Eat shit and die.

Re:Harden up (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866695)

Privacy is not a freedom?

Re:Harden up (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866677)

No that is just plain wrong, don't support their lie in any way. They absolutely don't want to trade liberty for security, they want to trade 'your' liberty for 'their' control over you. Control over what you read or see, write or say, in any digital format. They have found that as a result of the internet, our voice is louder than theirs, that the majority view point now creates itself and dominates the minority view point that dominated mass media.

Want a more secure internet, simple step one no more plain modems, all modems should incorporate a hardware fire wall based upon open source software, open source so that the public can see what is going on. Step two, simply use more secure software, that tightens up on internet access and that is a simple as using a better operating system, again open source is forced as the public has a right to know what is going on in a very integral part of their digital lives, what is basically becoming an essential service, no more secrets and no more lies.

Re:Harden up (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866713)

There's risk in pursuit and enjoyment of liberty. What people don't realize is that every action has consequences. The more actions that you are at liberty to take, the more consequences you subject yourself to.

America was founded on the principle of pursuit of liberty. I guess nobody realized that even liberty is a two-way street. The same goes for democracy. It's great when you vote for the right guy in office. Of course at other times, you end up with failures like Bush.

What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866341)

A World without Anonymous Cowards? I thought I'd never see the day!

Re:What? (2, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866721)

I guess that puts people like you at risk, eh?

There is no need to abandon privacy (1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866343)

and in fact, once again, anonymity in communication enjoys particular protection by the United States Constitution.

If "they" came up with a security model that required giving up privacy, then "we" would just come up with another that did not. There is no technical reason that privacy cannot be maintained... if anything, better than it is now.

Users (5, Insightful)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866361)

Build all the "new" Internets you want. As long as you have clueless users on your network, you'll have attack vectors.

Oh hey (5, Insightful)

kjzk (1097265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866363)

The internet is unfortunately the truest form of Freedom of Speech we have available. We can't even protest in public without fear of arrest or being harmed by police. There are a lot of people with money and power would like to stop the flow of information in its tracks.

Re:Oh hey (3, Insightful)

bdcrazy (817679) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866421)

There are a lot of people with money and power who would like to make more money and get more power by controlling the flow of information.

Re:Oh hey (1, Insightful)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866765)

Even more troubling is that it's the same people that are currently in control of it right now. ISP executives themselves wouldn't mind seeing the voices of the people silenced so they can dominate the market and crush competition. Money begets money. Sometimes I don't even know right now who/what it is that prevents them from having their way with the net.

Better or worse? (1)

hewell (1478347) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866373)

Make it quick, so we can suffer less. But who is there to say the new one isn't gonna be worse?

Easily answered (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866375)

Do we need a new internet? Yes, absolutely. My wife informs me that "the internet is down" probably two or three times a week on average.

Re:Easily answered (1)

Mascot (120795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866433)

Do you tell putting the plug back in fixes it?

Re:Easily answered (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866449)

hehe. see thewebsiteisdown.com

Re:Easily answered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866473)

then maybe you need a new provider or a new wife but that's not up to me now is it?

Re:Easily answered (0, Flamebait)

risinganger (586395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866735)

Congratulations on your witty comment. If I was to write something like that I'd tick the anonymous box too.

Did you stop for a moment to think maybe there is no choice in ISP where the parent is based? For example, there are plenty of places in the US where there is no competitive business vying for your money.

Re:Easily answered (0, Flamebait)

Calydor (739835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866709)

She obviously knows a lot about what it's like to go down. ;-)

Re:Easily answered (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866777)

Yeah, that blue e does have a few kinks sometimes.

Yes we do. All systems become antiquated. (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866379)

We need something like internet2.

1 gigabit ethernet type system would be excellent.

Something that replaces our old dying tech like TV. HDTV is not the answer. How are we going to get higher resolution tv with these mandated systems? We wont. It hinders new tech. I would love a ultrahigh resolution channel. We will never see it unless it uses broadband as delivery.

Re:Yes we do. All systems become antiquated. (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866529)

Hell with cable. Lets just use 4g or wimax or something.

Re:Yes we do. All systems become antiquated. (5, Informative)

raddan (519638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866669)

What neither of you seem to understand is that the physical infrastructure is irrelevant, and always has been, by design. Internet2 is a part of the Internet. The Internet runs on fibre, serial, cable, wireless, whatever, just fine. TFA talks about (actually, only sort of scrapes the surface of) architectural changes to the Internet. IPv6 (which is only tangentially related to the security issue), DNSSEC, BGPSEC, encryption by default, and so on-- these are the things that need to happen to make the Internet a safer place. But even those aren't "a new Internet". They're the same old Internet with some improvements.

The people working on core Internet protocols have known that these things have problems for a long time. This article doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. Microsoft themselves could contribute a lot to the problem of an "insecure Internet" if they just fixed their f'ing OS.

my letter to the editor (5, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866381)

To the Editor:

Re "A New Internet? The Old One is Putting Us in Jeopardy," by John Markoff (Week in Review, Feb. 15, 2009):

Mr. Markoff both misstates and overstates the security problems faced by the Internet as currently designed.

He never uses the word "Windows," but the virus outbreaks he describes are almost entirely a Windows phenomenon, and due to the poor design of that operating system. Microsoft's apologists have been saying for years that this was only because Windows' market share made it the more attractive target. But Apple's share of the desktop market has skyrocketed recently to 15% without any outbreaks of viruses targeting the Macintosh. And Microsoft has never commanded more than about half of the server market; the other half runs open-source operating systems such as Linux (used by Google) and FreeBSD (Yahoo), on which viruses are essentially unknown.

Markoff says it's hard to prove your identity on the internet, and proposes government regulation as a solution. But many people have been proving their identities for years now using proven technologies like public-key cryptography. The U.S. government played a negative role in the development of these technologies by attempting to regulate their distribution through export-control regulations originally intended for munitions.

Re:my letter to the editor (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866839)

That's the ticket. We need a new OS, not a new internet. We can work around the real problem as long as we want to. Or we can attack the problem head-on. Thing is, no one* has the guts to take them head-on.

*No, shut up, slashdot doesn't count.

NO. (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866385)

the success of internet is based on its freedom and anonymity.

Privacy vs. Anonymity (1)

HoboCop (987492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866391)

Why is it a bad thing that you aren't allowed to be anonymous? I've never really been sure that having to announce who you are is a violation of privacy. Why is everyone so desperate to remain nameless?

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (4, Insightful)

anomalous cohort (704239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866447)

This so-called new Internet isn't about privacy as it is criminalizing bad behavior. So, you get to face charges when your machine gets a virus and now you have to prove that it really wasn't your fault.

Are you ready to handle that? When your car or your gun gets stolen, you can report it. Then you're off the hook if someone commits a crime with it after you report the incident. Most folks won't be able to tell when their computer gets owned in a botnet. Most people would rather quit the Internet forever than risk criminal prosecution over something they don't really understand or have any confidence in managing.

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866493)

Fuck you, that's why.

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (2, Interesting)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866611)

Anonymity just allows more options. Someone might find it worthwhile to get a fact or slander out in the open at the expense of it not being trusted because the source was anonymous.
Someone else might hold back a bit on the truth or the vitriol, but back their comment with their reputation.
I think there is room in the world for both.

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866639)

I have a problem with lack of anonymity combined with the internet potentially keeping a permanent record of everything I ever say. I don't use my real name on usenet because I might say something that I will be embarrassed about in the future. I feel that would be unfair to future me. Any medium that won't be logged, and I'm happy to provide full information about who I am. As for the usenet alias, the only untruth is the name. I'm honest about my date of birth, where I live, educational background, and the fact that the name is an alias.

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866719)

What's your real name, HoboCop? And your address? Hypocrisy, much?

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866785)

After seeing some of the flamefests that can involve on, for instance, forums, with even the moderators of said forum joining in, I'd be quite glad to know that they can't tell who I am IRL. One forum I used to frequent mandated verification of your name, address, age, and social security number - I never looked back when I told them to politely traverse and auto-copulate.

Re:Privacy vs. Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866851)

Dear HoboCop,

I'm sure you're a nice citizen. How about giving me your full name, your home address, and your social security number? So we can know who you are?

Yours,
The US Government

Absolutely! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866407)

I, Mr. Anonymous Coward, hereby give up my anonymity. Now excuse me while I browse fake porn/warez malware sites with unpatched IE6 - after all, I am now safe!

Holy hell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866411)

Really? Internet white flight? Fucking seriously? While we're at it, let's build internet "projects" for the people that can't afford to use the "gated internet", and let's build "un-protected only" internet kiosks so that the "less fortunate" can drink from the fountain of knowledge. Jesus.

Gated community? (5, Funny)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866427)

A "gated community" with fewer abilities for users? Why not call it "Access Owned by Large corporations" or AOL for short?

Sliding down.... (1)

NeoTron (6020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866431)

...the long and slippery slope.

From the summary : "users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety".

*gets out clue by four* NO NO NO NO NO! *WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM*

Quote : "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Listen...

Even if at first this New Improved Internet worked the way these fools said it should, you can have a pretty sure bet that,
human nature being human nature, a lot of the so-called "bad" which happens to people on the current internet would begin to
happen there too.

That is all.

Short Answer (3, Interesting)

ajayrockrock (110281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866435)

No.

Long Answer (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866547)

Nooooooooooooooooo.

Help! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866437)

I'm melting!

In the words of Ben Franklin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866455)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Go ahead. We'll keep this one, OK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866459)

The internet is a network of networks. It's the protocol which unites them. Do you really think you can do better than TCP/UDP/IP?

You can use "our" network of networks to build yours. It's called a VPN. You can use any protocol you want and only admit people into your VPN who agree to provide a DNA sample and be strip searched, if that's how you roll.

Re:Go ahead. We'll keep this one, OK? (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866615)

There's a delicious irony that some of the best comments on this thread (about the "desire" to abandon anonymity - yeah right) have been posted by ACs.

So, as the OP points out, will they hanker after VPNs, or will they really come up with replacements for all the TCP/UDP/IP protocols (and, at a higher layer, replacements for http / ftp).

If the latter, how will they convince people to adopt a new browser, particularly those people who barely understand the concept of the current browsers?

Re:Go ahead. We'll keep this one, OK? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866843)

Imagine if the ISPs stopped (maybe because of law regulations) transporting TCP/IP packages and only allowed the "new and improved" protocol. Consequently, all the OSs would have to support the new protocols (or never connect to the internet at all). And you wouldn't have to reprogram every browser, just the OS TCP/UDP stacks. It could even be distributed as a system update.

They could even set a deadline, as they did with analog TV: they give every OS and ISP two years to change, those who don't would have their licenses revoked (for ISPs) or they wouldn't have internet access (for OSs).

Yeah, anonymity on the internet is broken. (2, Insightful)

Distan (122159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866461)

> ...asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced.

Yeah, I agree. Anonymity on the internet is completely broken. It is trivial for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force websites to reveal the IP addresses of users, and also trival for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force ISPs to reveal who had that IP address at a given moment in time. Granted, there are ways to make sure that the IP address you are using can't be traced to you, but those methods are kind of a pain in the ass.

> ...where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

WTF? Any rearchitecting of the internet needs to have subpoena-proof absolute anonymity built in from the beginning. This "proposal" is like suggesting we rearchitect transportation to make sure that vehicle occupants receive no shelter from the weather.

Hmm, here's some food for though... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866469)

I propose the new internet be named the patriot net.

The Interent is not a 'place'. (3, Interesting)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866483)

You cant "go" there.

The Internet is a communications network. I happens to be a "the world's" communications network, more or less.

Just like in the real world, you are (mostly) anonymous as long as you chose. Just like in the world you can choose what information you want to send, and what information you want to request (Notwithstanding the tendency of certain mainstream operating systems to make some of those choices for you)

Just like in the world, there are certain networks which are connected to the Internet in a restricted way (compare to 'gated communities'). To communicate with them, you may need some form of credential (password, public key, etc).

The Internet as it exists today is an entirely different network than it was even just 10 years ago. Its continuously being 'rebuilt'.

Also, there are many 'private' networks that are built on top of the Internet as it currently stands.

Basically, this is never going to happen, and yet is already is happening, it's just hard to see for the average clueless moron.

It's been done (4, Interesting)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866487)

It was called AOL, and it didn't work. It became, in fact, what Congressional investigators called "a magnet for pedophiles."

This isn't about safety. It's about control. Control of piracy, control of political agitation, and control of the truth. For all its faults, the net has created a populace that at least has the opportunity to be far better informed about the real world than our parents' generation.

Nice to Know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866503)

Markoff's still a raging idiot.

Ben Franklin Said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866507)

They That would loose a little liberty, to gain a little security, would deserve neither and loose them both.

Just look at what happens to walled/gated communit (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866521)

In places where the best of the haves hide behind gated communities, you know what happens? That's where the really enterprising criminals go. All of that faux security hasn't done a damn thing in countries like Mexico for the richest, who still have to worry about things like their kids getting kidnapped. The military still faces attacks on its secure networks. The fact is, no one and no institution is an island. If you don't participating in purging the world of ne'erdowellers and their ilk, you are just deluding yourself into thinking that your investment into your own safety is helping to get rid of the problem. That's why I advise friends and family to invest in a dog or two and a gun for defending their home, not a security system that can usually be defeated by a serious criminal.

Anonymous and Safe mutually exclusive? What? (1)

Syrente (990349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866525)

Personally I think being identifiable has much bigger security issues. Still, I think that an internet that has inter-internet border guards might as well not be the internet at all. Maybe if there were some way to switch between one or the other for whatever you're doing. Super-secure connection mode and anonymous-style connection mode. What we really need is less morons on the internet.

Cookies! (3, Funny)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866537)

Look at the bright side - no more tracking cookies needed if you surf from: firstname.lastname.age.sex.city.phone.address.com

bring back my internets (2, Insightful)

garlicbready (846542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866555)

I do think we need a new internet, in that we can then properly use the plural form of internet i.e. as in "give me back my internets you bastard"

Of course no-one will use the new internet due to lack of porn and free warezes and advertisements. Part of the appeal and success of the original internet is largely due to lack of accountability, and the ability to share ones own sick fetishes with the world completely anonymously.

Not to mention the target your painting on your forehead.
I mean seriously if your going to setup a new network simply for the purpose of being secure then why not just use a vpn? assuming you manage to setup a new "secure" internet, and advertise the fact that it's secure. It's a little like posting your ip on a hacker board and saying "bEt YoU CaNt HaCk Mez"

hmm yeah good luck with that

Windows, not the Internet. (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866565)

Windows, not the internet created the legions of Spammers, botnets and virii. In the Unix world, we closed the SMTP relays. Yet the Windows bots still swarm. Now. I am not saying that in the Unix world, we would be completely free of security vulnerabilities. There would still be hackers and spammers. But they would no6t be as widespread a problem. The proliferation of Spam has been directly attributed to the rise off Windows bots. Get rid of Windows, you get rid of the problem.

The other problem is the DMCA and DMCA like legislation. We need to be rid of the DMCA by any means necessary

Totalitarian states (2, Interesting)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866569)

No anonymity on the Internet? China, North Korea, and other totalitarian states would love this.

A wise man once said... (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866605)

..."if it aint broke, don't fix it."

oh, wait...

In reality, it's too large an infrastructure to just replace. To work on bit by bit (no pun intended), yes. To completely rehash, NO.

Give up freedom for false security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866631)

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Benjamin Franklin

Simple (5, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866647)

If we cant make the comparitively tiny step of moving from ipv4 to ipv6 I think its nigh impossible to move to "a new internet".

I think Ill trust Benjamin Franklin (3, Insightful)

voss (52565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866681)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin 1775.

If I have a choice between the people who gave us Echelon, Gitmo, Abu Grahib, DCMA, COPA, and failed to stop 9/11 versus virsuses and spyware...Ill take the viruses and spyware. I can protect myself from viruses and spyware much easier than I can protect myself from encroachment upon my liberty.

ridiculous (4, Interesting)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866693)

This is simply a horrendous idea that certainly has no place. It is basically seems to be a ploy of those who long for a tolitarian police state to get their way. This is a very tpical pattern that we see with shutting down an open society and create a police state, create fear and some horrendous problem, creating a reaction and then you can get people to demand a solution, offer them your solution which is taking away their freedom. You can basically get people to beg you to enslave them. The reason they want to do this is to gain greater control and mastery over the people and keep them from exercising control over their lives and government. They want to be able to monitor what everyone says and does, so they can then punish those who are saying things which run contrary to their agenda or who are advocating for democratic change. To stay in power indefinitely a tolitarian state needs to supress all dissent. Getting rid of privacy is the first step on the road to totalitarianism since to supress dissent they need to know who has what opinions and views so they can attack and punish them. They want to supress views and opinions as well, and want to manipulate and control information to psychologically manipulate the population by with-holding information and providing propoganda which manipulates people to support whatever objective they wish or behave in the way they please. Yo can bet that the desire to prohibit for instance pornography as a psychological and social engineering purpose, for instance.

The internet is just fine the way it is. No censorship should be allowed and anonymity should be a basic right. Only with such rights can free speech exist. There can be no free speech without anonymity since they can suppress and attack those who hold opinions they do not like.

Sure with how things are now there are spam messages in my mail box but I would rather have that and choose to opt in for a filter in my own software, than to have some mass surviellance scheme. I also think that government and the big brother nanny state poses far greater risk to our children coming from the tolitarian terror state that emerges from this than anything they will see on the internet. Those who give up their liberty for so called safety will be creating out of the government a much worse menace than anything it was supposed to protect them against.

The main thing that needs to be addressed with the internet has nothing to do with increasing surviellance or reducing privacy. There needs to be more use of SSL and there needs to be secure encrypted BGP and DNS to make sure that routing tables cannot be hacked.

It makes me quite angry that after we have fought so hard as a country to secure our liberties from a tolitarian oppressive government prying into our lives and deciding what we should look at, that we have people who are actively trying to undo these hard won liberties and turn the country into a totalitarian nightmare where people live in fear of an oppressive and tyrannical government, like china.

"Those who give up essential liberty for safety will deserve and shall get neither" -Benjamin Franklin

a license to write about the internet. (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866703)

how about a license to WRITE about the Internet... and a death penalty attached to any abuse.

John Markoff ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866715)

John Markoff - that prick is still talking about stuff he does not understand? Last I checked he was doing a campaign against Kevin Midnick (back in early 2000's) and stating a bunch of false facts. He is also the self-made expert for computer hackers. Freedom downtime anyone? Oh well..

series of tubes (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866739)

That works pretty well, but maybe for the next generation they could introduce T fittings.

Short answer: No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866749)

Long answer: No.

carry on as before (1)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866773)

the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there.

no change there then.

My proposal (1)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866789)

If you're going to be developing a new Internet, allow me to propose you incorporate the Aquinas Protocol. It'll allow me to monit.... eh, enjoy seeing all the wondrous new benefits this provides to our users.

I also recommend routing the entire network to a certain locale in Nevada, just for kicks.

Ta,
Bob Page.

Oh by the way... MJ12 represent! Oops, sorry.

My God, Akin is a terrible writer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866791)

I have to struggle to cut through his horrendous grammar to figure out what he is trying to get across. I can hardly believe he identifies himself as a writer.

Scary Times. (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866803)

Yeah, it'll be fine to have this kind of internet once they start putting drugs like these [dailymail.co.uk] in to the food chain.

New internet? (1)

speedingant (1121329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866821)

Of course we need a new internet. Someone in the IT crowd obliterated it! I've been living in a bunker ever since.

Do it! (1)

woolpert (1442969) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866827)

Take your corporate, commercial, interests and go somewhere else.
Leave the existing internet just the way it is, though, on your way out.
There is an inherint friction between the desires of commercial actors and private individuals attempting to maximize their freedoms. Leave the internet as the great extended T.A.Z. [wikipedia.org] it can be.
Maybe this September will finally end. [wikipedia.org]

Instead of a new internet (2, Informative)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866829)

We just need to educate people on how to use the internet and not fuck up their computer. It would go along the lines of, 1. Don't go to shady porn sites 2. Don't download software to turn your cursor into a piece of glitter covered shit 3. Don't send money to people in Nigeria 4. Do use anti virus/spyware/adware programs 5. Use open source software when possible 6. If you want to figure out how to fix your computer/internet go to google.com and type in your problem By my estimation this would solve around 90% of computer/internet issues. Without giving up our freedom just because you are so fucking incompetent you don't know how to work your own machine.

Needs a different form of routing (2, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866841)

What we really need is a return to bang-path routing. Everything after there was just downhill. Hard to use for newbies and not terribly hard for anyone with a clue.

And if the net was slow, you might actually be able to do something about it, not just hope your upstream got a freaking clue.

nonsense (4, Funny)

doti (966971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866847)

give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

so I'll be safer by exposing myself?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>