×

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!

You Won't Recognize the Internet in 2020

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-don't-recognize-it-now dept.

The Internet 421

alphadogg writes "As they imagine the Internet of 2020, computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything: from IP addresses to DNS to routing tables to Internet security in general. They're envisioning how the Internet might work without some of the most fundamental features of today's ISP and enterprise networks. Their goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management. Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content. And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets. This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010, as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype. Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands – perhaps millions – of end users in its experiments."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

421 comments

yes I will, it still has fp's (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30640902)

first post

Get real (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30640908)

Get real, in 2020 we might just have IPV6 to your local PC. Probably with all the consoles, games, etc that require IPV4 even this is optomistic. (I know many of you will have IPV6 end to end, but I mean for the average Joe)

Re:Get real (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641192)

Their goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches

So there will be no Windows machines or any other Microsoft software on this new Internet?

Re:Get real (1, Offtopic)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641238)

I don't care what they do as long as I can get to porn.

Re:Get real (0, Offtopic)

molecular (311632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641266)

I don't care what they do as long as I can get to porn.

Do you still not care when officials (govt, health ensureance, potential employer,..) have "secured" data about how much and what type of porn you "got to" in the past?

Re:Get real (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641506)

So long as I, in turn, get to see secured data on the porn they (government employees, health insurance clerks, HR reps from potential employers) consume ... then I'm fine with that.

Re:Get real (1, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641332)

Hey, I would just like to see encryption techniques switch over to one of the methods that have been mathematically proven unbreakable instead of continuing to rely on the primes method which still has that Riemann hypothesis staring at it.

Re:Get real (2, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641474)

Hey, I would just like to see encryption techniques switch over to one of the methods that have been mathematically proven unbreakable instead of continuing to rely on the primes method which still has that Riemann hypothesis staring at it.

There are no techniques that have been mathematically proven unbreakable (one time pad excepted). You are thinking of quantum encryption, which requires hardware.

For pedants, yes quantum physics is a mathematical construct, but they are relying on actual physical particles conforming to these rules - which is still under debate. Quantum uncertainty in our universe could be part of a deterministic system in higher dimensions.

Not only that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30640910)

also every internet account will come withy a free flying car.

Anonymous Coward (5, Interesting)

tsj5j (1159013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30640912)

As I came to the end of the article, I saw... "You are not logged in. ... or post as Anonymous Coward." I wonder, with all these fancy features and identity management, will the veil of anonymity on the internet be removed? Internet censorship has always been limited because the internet as we know it makes it hard with its anonymity and proxies, etc. The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?

Re:Anonymous Coward (3, Informative)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641020)

The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?

I believe that the government (at least in the U.S.) funded the original Internet.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

rutter (1430885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641306)

Yes, but it was designed with applications in defence and research, not for general consumer use. Government, particularly our intelligence agencies, now recognises how pervasive a communication medium the internet is and will become, so an opportunity to make the game easier for them is one they will likely not miss.

Re:Anonymous Coward (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641656)

The internet is based on ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) [wikipedia.org] a military research project to use packet switching over a network instead of circuit switching. I doubt they envisioned it becoming so innocuous. It wasn't until Tim Berners-Lee [wikipedia.org] introduced HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) and subsequently released it royalty free that the Internet's World Wide Web was born. And the rest, as they say, is history. This "new" internet initiative is probably to try and put the genie back in the bottle.

Re:Anonymous Coward (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641670)

And Al Gore actually had a lot to do with changing the Internet from being a few universities, government agencies, and big businesses into a tool that gazillions of people use. Say what you will about his other political stances, but he deserves quite a bit of credit for his work in the Senate that makes it clear he thought the geeks had a very good thing going.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

molecular (311632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641170)

The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?

Maybe this is main the goal?

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Funny)

molecular (311632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641322)

The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?

Oh please, not that word! You're getting it all wrong. You should call it "internet-safer-place-make-ing".

Their goal is audacious? (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30640960)

"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management."

I see. They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641078)

Security and identity management doesn't imply loss of privacy. If things are done right, you can make up an identity any time you want. Your bank won't trust that identity at first, but that's a feature, not a bug.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641122)

But they will not be done right. they will make sure to build in anti-"doing wrong" features such as blocking unprotected audio and video formats

Re:Their goal is audacious? (5, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641226)

If the future Internet is developed in an apolitical, academic context like the current one was, we'll be fine. If corporate interests and security-obsessed regimes are able to lobby for certain "features," though, distorting the process, then we're in for some major problems.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641368)

The problem is that they didn't develop the current Internet for everyone, it didn't even occur to them that people outside of a very limited scope would even be interested in the Internet. Everyone knows that the "new" Internet will be for everyone, so there is no way that political and corporate interests will let it develop without trying to influence it.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (2, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641132)

Personal identification is bad for porn.

Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.

It's one thing to not talk openly about it, it's another to forget it.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641184)

Free speech through anonymity is kind of cool and really important in some parts of the world where thats the only kind of free speech available. However free speech without the need for anonymity is way better. Also there is something to be said for being proud and responsible for the things you say. And this means putting your name on them.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (2, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641410)

You can do all that with pseudonymity. You get an identity, but it does not need to be the same as your real one.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641536)

Indeed, because if there's one thing governments have stressed continually the last ten years it's that our privacy is paramount. When they're not invading it, recording it or leaving it lying around on trains, that is.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641554)

In some parts of the US still, it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (2, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641666)

"Free speech without the need for anonymity is way better" agreed, if only it were the case. Sometimes you need to openly discuss something while retaining privacy, putting your name on questions about disease or sexuality could cost you your insurance, job, social status, family and even your life even in "the free west".

If you have something sufficiently important to say, it doesn't matter where you are in the world, you either need anonymity or the willingness to be sued, imprisoned or killed for what you say. "Deep Throat" used anonymity, Martin Luther King Jr. didn't.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641190)

Identity management and anonymity are not opposites.

If I were to completely design this system I would use ID cards digitally signed by the government with a proper public-private encryption scheme, but with multiple levels of information. The legislation around these cards should account for the information categories and what companies can legally do with it. The levels should have clear names and colors, and when you sign in to a website you will *never* need a login anymore, only an ID, and the website can request certain information, but you have to enter it by swiping your ID in front of the reader.

The levels of information should be:
- Anonymous, but verified age
- Anonymous, but verified location (country, city)
- Name verified, but nothing else
- Name, SSN, other details

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641336)

To implement such a thing, you need thousands of endpoints (or perhaps hundreds, but you are going to need pretty good throughput, especially if you use multiple private keys and occasionally reject one). The least trustworthy operators of those endpoints are going to be less trustworthy than your encryption.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641460)

And when the database is stolen...

And when the card is stolen...

And when the user misuses the card...

And when the user uses his card on a compromised machine...

And when the two later happen a hundred thousand times per day...

Such a system needs to have an answer to all those situations and some more.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (0)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641500)

And your system provides absolutely no protection against corrupt governments that seek to limit freedom of speech. (AKA, all governments)

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

JcMorin (930466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641198)

I agree with you, they will "try" to have a better control-freak internet but my prediction is that in 10 years, the web will still be IPv4 mainly, html with a bit more JavaScript/flash/Silverlight but won't be rebuild from scratch... the same way email never got rebuild from scratch even if everyone agree with one the worst communication design.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641256)

"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management."

I see. They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.

What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better. At the end, there was a brief mention of content-centric networking [wikipedia.org] which -- I must admit -- sounds like it doesn't solve any security issues. There's all these generic complaints of security and how horrible it is. In the article, when they talk about reinventing the internet they say things like:

NSF says it won't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented, with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning.

I frankly don't get it. And since they're not giving me examples of how they're going to revolutionize security, all I can do is sit back and ask, "How are you going to do it better than SSL?" How will a security implementation 'from the beginning' change anything? You know what else made my eyes roll?

Another key aspect of GENI is that it will be used to test new security paradigms. Elliott says the GENI program will fund 10 security-related efforts between now and October 2010.

That statement is dripping with bullshit marketing and venture capital garnering rhetoric. Will someone please man up and explain in detail how you are going to revolutionize security on the internet without running into obvious problems that the current solution seeks to avoid (ones like the parent post pointed out)?

We're getting all these nebulous ideas thrown at us without any detailed explanation so you'll have to forgive me for being dubious.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641290)

They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled. Even "an alternative architecture that removes the intelligence from switches and routers and places these smarts in an external controller", your router or switch is no longer your own but controlled and remotely programmed by others.

The article stinks of creating an internet that matches the 20th century media model, where a handful and rich and greedy decide what is to be presented as the majority opinion. The struggle was to be expected, after all you can have the uncontrolled masses sharing and discussing there opinions.

Here's betting that their controlled, censored, monitored, restricted, "Big Brother" network dies on the drawing board, as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641478)

You are right, I had not commented about that part. You wouldn't want people putting unvetted video, audio, pictures they recorded themselves because there may be a copyrighted song or spine of a popular book barely audible/visible in the background. I am sure people will be allowed to upload such things if they are willing to sign over ownership and control of the original work to a "trusted" authority.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641582)

They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled.

Maybe they could conjure up some sort of uniform locator for these resources and some type of algorithm to securely hash the content.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

interploy (1387145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641328)

That, and they want to be able to have near-absolute control of content again. A new and improved Internet where the DRM is built right in, and the poor, huddled masses of big business doesn't have to be afraid of piracy or charging for content anymore.

And not even that imaginative. (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641514)

From TFA:

Another radical proposal to change the Internet infrastructure is content-centric networking, which is being developed at PARC.... Instead of using IP addresses to identify the machines that store content, content-centric networking uses file names and URLs to identify the content itself.

Kind of like how the Web works.

We're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines isn't important anymore. Moving content is really important.

Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.

Peer-to-peer networks, content distribution networks, virtual servers and storage are all trying to get around this fact.

Actually, no, they're the methods you'll have to use to build your utopian Internet, even if you hide it behind a new name. Also, how do virtual servers get around that fact?

Jacobson proposes that content — such as a movie, a document or an e-mail message — would receive a structured name that users can search for and retrieve. The data has a name, but not a location, so that end users can find the nearest copy.

There's a name for that "name" -- a URI.

Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood. The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.

I mean, if I understand what they're actually proposing, the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.

Re:Their goal is audacious? (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641518)

WTF? Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. Anonymity gets its due, at least here on slashdot.

"Serious" internet? (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30640962)

Maybe we should just leave all the adult stuff, warez, etc. on the old Internet, and just use the new one for "not that".

What's new? (1)

BarMonger (884208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30640976)

Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks

Isn't that how the Internet, we have now, started? So what has changed, except for reinventing the whole thing?

HTTP 2.0? (1)

Nesman64 (1093657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641004)

I fear that our beloved open net will become a thing of the past. This sounds similar to previous talks of creating a secure and authenticated email system. Although I would welcome the end of SPAM, I'm sure it would be replaced by "official partner advertising".

I also think this might mean the end of file sharing and anonymous free speech, ala wikileaks.

A world without ISPs? (2, Interesting)

davidpbrown (757067) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641036)

If every computer was linked to every other in its vicinity, rather than directly to a limited number of ISPs, I wonder everything would be faster and more robust overall; a self healing network rather than one vunerable to a few cables snapping. The watchers won't be happy losing control but might it be a better net, if not everything had to go through the narrow part of the funnel?

Can this already be done with wireless bridging?.. is it possible to fragment DNS lookup so the ISP becomes redundant?

O rly? (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641060)

I'm pretty sure I will recognize the net in 2020. People always overestimate the rate of change in the future.

Re:O rly? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641356)

Yup, Usenet is still there, and I know of several gopher servers that still are very useful.

Re:O rly? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641420)

Indeed. Change only rarely comes from existing things being replaced by incompatible variations on the theme. Thats why MP3 is still the king of lossy compressed audio, why PNG never really took off as a mainstream image format, why ZIP is still the prefered archive format, and why Windows is still the #1 Operating System.

Many people dont know this, but the Internet was only one of many such similar networks started in the 60's and 70's. Tymenet and Telenet were some of the other alternatives being used even into the late 90's (and maybe even still used today.)

Re:O rly? (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641634)

People always overestimate the rate of change in the future.

Not at all...as I zip around in my flying car...get my power from cold fusion & love my robot family.

Re:O rly? (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641756)

I'm pretty sure I will recognize the net in 2020. People always overestimate the rate of change in the future.

People usually overestimate the changes in the short time future, but underestimate the long term changes. In 1990, who would have predicted the Internet and its implications for nearly everybody ?

Installed Base (5, Insightful)

rshol (746340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641062)

The current internet installed base infrastructure that would need to be ripped out and replaced is so large that this kind of redesign will never happen. Change has to come in incremental steps, each with a significant, well identified payback. What's technically possible does not matter nearly as much as whether change will make or save money.

Re:Installed Base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641378)

They will have to provide some kind of bridge between "old" and "new" internet. Like IPv6 tunneling right now.

Re:Installed Base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641658)

The internet has what you might call hw/sw evolution, where weak technologies adapt or die. Switching to something brand new will truly be interesting, as I imagine that the global "immune system" will start attacking these new technologies on day one.

Someone call Ender... (1)

redcap saves (1528631) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641074)

"And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets."

Sounds like someone plans on stealing the ansible technology from the Buggers.

Remember the (1)

TrentTheThief (118302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641092)

For those of you not familiar with the writings of Daniel Keys Moran, I suggest you obtain a copy of Green Eyes or The Long Run.

Once there is no way to have free, anonymous speech on the internet, there will be no arena left where one can have free, anonymous speech.

I'm not suggesting total anarchy, but a rather that such total control should be avoided at all costs.

Re:Remember the (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641588)

His books are actually titled "Emerald Eyes" "The Long Run" and "The Last Dancer". They're also very hard to find in print, but can be found here http://immunitysec.com/resources-dkm.shtml [immunitysec.com]

More security = less freedom (5, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641100)

I have a sneaking suspicion that more security will lead to less internet freedom. Sure it'll be nice if you didn't have to worry about phishing sites or spam, but at what cost? A more secure internet means oppressive regimes can track dissidents. It means companies can track your behavior online, and well-meaning governments can limits legitimate freedoms.

Re:More security = less freedom (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641470)

I have a sneaking suspicion that more security will lead to less internet freedom. Sure it'll be nice if you didn't have to worry about phishing sites or spam, but at what cost? A more secure internet means oppressive regimes can track dissidents. It means companies can track your behavior online, and well-meaning governments can limits legitimate freedoms.

Except that you will still have to worry about phishing sites and spam, but the government and companies will be able to track your online behavior (unless you have stolen someone else's identity) in detail. Oh yeah, it will also be harder to find info that the governemtn doesn't want you to know.

Re:More security = less freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641652)

And the fun thing is as soon as someone has stolen your identity (It WILL happen. The exact same way it happens with credit cards, etc) they will go about phishing and doing all the things scammers already do - but the government will be able to accurately track them... I'm sorry, I mean YOU and bring you to justice as the horrible victim you are.

Very nice, but... (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641138)

I think the real key is considering how we get there from here. The ideas are nice, laudable goals -- and maybe even needed -- but they won't happen unless there's a pathway to get to them from today's Internet. Like a chemical reaction, even if the end result is lower energy than the starting reagents, nothing will happen if the work function separating the two is too high.

As long as they want to build an internet... (4, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641140)

...that values personal freedom over corporate or government control, I am for them.

Re:As long as they want to build an internet... (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641748)

I just don't see "values personal freedom" as being inline with this stated goal:

To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.

what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641150)

I'm a computer scientist and I'm not doing any of that stuff mentioned in the summary. None of my computer scientist friends are either. I'm calling bullshit on this one.

I Applaud Their Efforts (0)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641178)

Whatever some people might like to say, I, for one, applaud their efforts. Whether they do create a new Internet or not, the research and development going into the project will benefit the current Internet. And if they do manage to create a new foundation... Well, maybe we'd finally be able to use a network which was designed for use by more than the military and a handful of universities? The tech behind the web is antiquated and was never created to handle such large network. It's already good we can manage, but there are still plenty of issues that a well-designed system could prevent without needing tons of patches that further complicate things. If it can improve speed, make coding for it easier, make it more reliable and more secure, what exactly is there not to love? Plus, if it doesn't really do everything better, it won't get adopted. It's a win-win situation.

What crap (0, Flamebait)

jackspenn (682188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641194)

I love this BS where a bunch of academics theorize how things should be, if only they were in change and the world was a very organized and authoritarian structure. Then what really happens is some dude with no more than a HS diploma comes up with a workable solution in his garage. It isn't sexy, it just works and the academics either 1). hate him for it and put his solution down or 2). Claim he was simply doing what they suggested in the first place.

Re:What crap (3, Informative)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641388)

Well the internet is very much a creation of a bunch of academics with state funding, so lets not stereotype so much.

Security starts at the ends (4, Insightful)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641232)

It's not the Internet switching fabric that is the problem, it's the end nodes. None of our PCs is provably secure. It's highly likely it won't be by 2020 either, as it appears the money is going into the wrong places in research. Capability Based Security [wikipedia.org] has been around since the 1980s, and yet it's not even being funded to try to get it ready for widespread use by 2020.

Until the ends of the internet are secure, it's not going to be secure. It almost seems the money is always being spent in places where it won't really help the end user, but will allow more control by the authorities. (Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?)

Re:Security starts at the ends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641396)

Symbian has had this in millions of mobile phone handsets for a long time now.

Re:Security starts at the ends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641550)

The politicians must be the ones making the future internet. Because after all, anyone with a working knowledge of security knows that it's impossible to make something 100% secure. Because after all, security is just a bunch of logical computer statements. If you want something made secure, you have to take the computer out of it.

Re:Security starts at the ends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641754)

Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?

Using only one bit to represent paranoia is a known vulnerability. Please upgrade libParanoiaKit.

That said, it seems like secure identity management can be added to the existing system with the addition of single secure endpoints as you stipulate. My recommendation is that these endpoints be additional rather than attempting to secure existing endpoints. That is, new, secure mobile devices that would be secure endpoints. They would handle key management, user authentication, and encryption. Existing endpoints could be used for routing secure and insecure communications alike.

Very little would have to change for this to be effective in the short term, and in the long term (as you say) capability-based security and user-prompted delegation (for privacy, security, and identity management) could be realized through the secure endpoints.

Just not trustworthy (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641240)

with better trust and built-in identity management.

. This is the part I worry about, it sounds like what the **AA's would love to have, an Internet without anonymity, one where everything is trusted.

Much like the trusted computing module put onto motherboards, I simply can't have faith in "trusted" Internet. Remember your TPM has nothing to with you being able to trust anyone, and everything to do with you not being trusted with your own computer.

The model we're using today is just wrong. It can't be made to work. We need a much more information-oriented view of security, where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central."

It may not be the researchers intent, but this sounds a lot like a euphemism for centralized content licensing management. The Internet community has been burned to many times, with trust becoming a euphemism for DRM and licensing. These researchers need to understand, that if nothing else they are going to have an image problem, even if they have no intentions of centralizing content management. One way to further look into this to see if this indeed the case would be to look and see what companies are helping to bankroll the research. Depending on the company, they will expect (demand) that things are built in a manner that they would as resolving their licensing issues.

Re:Just not trustworthy (1)

mike.mondy (524326) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641690)

Securing the network layer is like securing the highways. A secure highway doesn't stop a robber from driving to your house and stealing from you. The problem isn't the robber's *car*.

As long as criminals and spammers can hijack computers and run botnets there will be spam and phishing sites. As long as users' desktops are vulnerable, they'll be compromised to make phishing sites look good.

Of course, the network layer *does* need to be secure in various ways. Preventing various types of masquerade, preventing attacks on the network itself, etc. But solutions at the end-points seem to be a tougher problem at the moment.

Deja Vu (5, Insightful)

EriktheGreen (660160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641246)

"Why, we could redefine everything, from a new addressing scheme to network management protocols, and we could define a software stack with specific functions performed by each level of the network code.. from packet construction to routing and switching! And get this... for flexibility, we'll allow each layer to communicate directly with its corresponding layer in another application! You'll be able to use the same network code for local shared memory communications and global internet communications! There'll be a new addressing scheme with no shortage of addresses, performance will be better than it currently is, and most of the problems related to security and routing of traffic will be solved!"

"Best of all, the new model for the network will be very logically organized, not the mishmash of software and standards that have organically evolved from the old ARPANet protocols and de facto standards. It will be easily understandable through common sense acronyms and simple models."

"It'll be so superior to what we have now that it's a no brainer.. everyone will obviously convert to it right away, with no one left behind."

"So, you should watch closely and start admiring the folks writing this standard now, and start teaching it to college students so they're prepared to deal with the New Internet when we're done."

Pfft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model [wikipedia.org]

If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office, or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job, or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality. It won't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make "The New Internet (tm)".

Erik

Right (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641274)

That's what they said in 1999, isn't it? We have Facebook and Twitter and x10000000000 web pages and lolcats, but everything else is the same.

this sounds like (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641292)

the propaganda that iran, china, cuba, etc., put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological "improvements" for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet

Anonymous internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641314)

With governments and ISPs censoring the internet around the world, we need a peer to peer network that is truly distributed, decentralized, and anonymous.

I don't want to have to pay a monthly fee either. I will pay $$ for my own equipment to connect to my neighbors.

already unrecognizable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641340)

I never see anybody I know when watching porn.

What other planets? (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641344)

And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets.

What "other planets"? Occassionally people will talk about travelling to "other planets". What "planets" are they talking about?

You can't land on Jupiter, Saturn, Nepture or Uranus because they are just gas. Mercury has a temp of around 1100 C and Venus is 900 degrees with a sulfuric acid atmosphere and atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than earth.

So that just leaves Mars. So why don't they just say Mars instead of "other planets"?

Ummm... (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641354)

To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.

We don't want that.

Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content. And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets

None of that has anything to with the first part of their statement. Changing protocols and changing packets won't change the fact that you need the physical hardware at the location. The current internet does not have a problem extending connectivity to the remote regions of the world, or even to other planets. The only thing stopping THAT is the physical wires, servers, switches, etc. that have to be set up.

Before you go on about limitted address space, keep in mind that if we pushed those kinds of projects (the second type) the more we'd be pushing towards IPv6 - and even now we have some silly workarounds like NAT. In fact, I think if they redesigned NAT so it wasn't so... annoying to use, we'd get more use out of that than any other internet protocol they are probably working on.

No more nowrap="nowrap" (1)

SpoodyGoon (1574025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641374)

Does this mean no more nowrap="nowrap"? I have lost any faith in a uniform internet I ever had, I would not be shock to learn in 2020 we will still be making concessions to applications so they run on IE6.

It's all fun and games... (1)

Ranma-sensei (800217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641446)

All concerns regarding free speech aside:
Innovation doesn't work that way. You can't take a decentralized network like the web and make it "a saver place". That's bogus, and in my opinion a huge waste of money.

Needless to say, they'll try anyways.

Ja ne,
Ranma-sensei

and five years after we invent & roll that out (2, Insightful)

caudron (466327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641452)

...the rest of the world will hate us for controlling "their" Internet.

(sorry, just read a Digg thread and I'm bitter about dumb people right now)

Tom Caudron

All those gilded, pumped up words to hide (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641464)

one single fucking dirty word : control.

love the way how they pump up the stuff noone needs - exabytes of content, more 'reliability'. reliability of what, exactly ? reliable in which way, precisely ? it awfully resembles shitty catchphrases senators use to push their sinister private interest agendas in senate. 'good' abstract words which noone should object to - reliability.

'identity management'. what a nice way to say 'control'. its like naming a damned private interest feudal law Digital Millenium copyright act. now see, there's the phrase 'digital' in it and it also says 'millenium'. that cant be something bad right ?

so it goes like this. of course, unless we net people, eff and similar organizations starten up and take the initiative to create public opinion rather than waiting for some private interest to screw us all up by brainwashing the public.

Learn a lesson from "the Jetsons" ... (4, Insightful)

Radioheadhead (611950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641524)

We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now, weren't we? Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more. And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there's no Internet in "the Jetsons?" With so many businesses relying on the Internet, it will be like pulling teeth to bring IPv6 to fruition, whether or not Windows Vista said it was ready for it. I'm not saying these changes don't need to be made--of course they do. But with every business on Earth pulling in the other direction, I don't believe I'll see these changes in my lifetime. Of course I would have said the same thing about seeing an African-American President, too ...

Time capsule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641528)

Can someone print this page and put in a time capsule and place underground for 10 years? I'd say this link would be here to reference, but with a "New" internet... One never knows!

World's largest you say? Wave that flag, dude! (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641556)

"Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands – perhaps millions – of end users in its experiments."

Gosh now, China seems to only have a measly 22 NBCLs involved at the moment [ohio-state.edu]....and there's nothing 'perhaps' about the millions it can engage.

And those are just the ones that are already built. Who knows have many are in the 'is building' stage...

How about some digital cash? (5, Interesting)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641688)

There is still no way for me to buy something with cash on the internet. Cash is cash. It's money, in and of itself, divorced from my identity. No identity is necessary. I can buy something at the corner store, or the liquor store, or the gas station with cash; the cashier doesn't need to verify my identity to see if my money is "good". It doesn't matter; my cash spends the same as anyone else's. When I meet someone to buy something off craigslist, I don't NEED to check anyone's identity; only to see that they are holding a wad of cash. The cash will spend regardless of who they are. There is nothing like this on the internet. I have to pay via credit card, paypal, or something else. How about getting around to inventing digital cash?

And since cash is "just money", and the property of whoever is holding it at a particular time, why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way? In one of the Terry Pratchett books, there were ID cards that were, inherently, identities of themselves. Nobody had to prove you were the "owner" of the identity. It didn't matter; it was a non-issue, just like nobody has to verify if you are the owner of a wad of cash. The card WAS the identity.

I still long for a True Names anonymous internet of pseudoannonymity, multiple online identities, digital cash and annonymising remailers.

Use what IETF originally recommended (1)

theoldwizard (613044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30641766)

Most have forgotten that the Internet Engineering Task Force originally recommend OSI with full implementation of all 7 layers of the ISO model. Of course, no one wanted that ... You got what you asked for !

Welcome to the beginning of the end (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30641780)

To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management

Once it was possible to obtain a car (if you could afford it), sit at the wheel and roam about the countryside, feeling the wind in you hair and scaring the cows. Eventually this became so much the image of freedom that the theme from the "World of Motion" exhibit at EPCOT was called "It's fun to be free." Today you need to license the car (pay fee), license yourself (pay fee), maintain both licenses (pay fee pay fee), keep you car street legal (pay maintenance), learn and abide by an insane amount of legislation (and I don't know anybody who has never had a ticket, no matter how careful they are), pay insurance... Owning a car today is a chore, driving is a necessity but it's far from fun; the moment it becomes fun, you're breaking some law. I know, this protects everybody, blah blah blah, I agree. But it's not fun.

The same mindset, for similar reasons, is now being ported to the Internet. Good bye freedom, good bye fun. Hello taxes, licensing and obligations. Sad.

Load More 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...