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!

What Does the 'Next Internet' Look Like?

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the hampster-dance-for-the-next-generation dept.

Networking 283

Kraisch writes with a link to the Guardian website, which again revisits the subject of reconstructing the internet. This time the question isn't whether it should be done, but what should the goals of a redesign be? From the article: "'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute. At the moment we are still using very clumsy methods to approach such problems. The result: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m, while one recent report claimed 93% of all email sent from the UK was spam ... Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet. By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack."

cancel ×

283 comments

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

It looks like (4, Interesting)

eviloverlordx (99809) | about 7 years ago | (#20076735)

1984.

Re:It looks like (5, Funny)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 7 years ago | (#20076857)

Maybe 1985. I want color.

Seriously. How about plain text, maybe a standard color and graphics set, no embedded content, downloadable material only. We could even let the government have their infinite monitoring system. If it were all plain text then there'd be no secret to it. To make encoded binary workarounds undesireable, limit the whole sha-bang to 4800 bps. That'll please the recording industry too. Blank CD sales will go through the roof.

Draw a few lines to keep the network secure. Let the crowd whine and cry that it's too difficult to download a file and open it locally with the appropriate application. Those people never really wanted or needed computers anyway. Let them go back to playing dominos or Yahtzee or something.

Do you realize how many problems we could solve by putting the open network back on the terms that it should never have left?

The funny thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077569)

The funny thing is, is that he wasn't joking. Read some of his other posts for reference.

Re:It looks like (1)

alxbtk (1009019) | about 7 years ago | (#20077601)

We had that in France years ago. We called it the Minitel.

Re:It looks like (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077233)

Given that the primary activity of a civilized person is commerce, the new web needs to be optimally efficient for reliable business exchanges.

That means that any and every participant can be identified. Anonymity leads to fraud and hence it cannot be tolerated. If you post anything, it should always be possible to trace that back to you.

Also, there should be good record keeping of all online activity, not just for receipt verification but also for legal purposes. This gives the added benefit of making cyber-terrorism more difficult, and enabling a wider range of response options for law enforcement.

Also, there should be very tight controls on the sorts of actions that people can take online. The duplication of intellectual property is illegal, so the system should be designed in such a way that makes this nearly impossible to do (and easy to observe and pinpoint when done). A good way to do this would be to have a central registry of file transfers that administers file transfer licenses on a case-by-case bases. Vendors can pre-authorize the repeated distribution of their products while individuals will need to individually authorize each file they want to transfer. The files in question will, of course, have copies preserved for tracking purposes.

Lastly, better controls on encrypted data exchange need to be put in place. When everyone and his brother can encrypt their communications it becomes impossible to enforce the intellectual property laws which serve as the backbone of the new economy. Ideally individual users would never be able to encrypt anything unless working within the some pre-approved context, such as development on a government contract or what-have-you. Again, some central agency should serve as the distributor of encryption licenses, granting them in bulk to vendors as appropriate for the nature of their business.

Such an Internet would make it much more difficult for people to commit IP crimes, thus freeing up law enforcement resources to focus on other matters. Also, it would allow businesses to easily keep very accurate track of the activities of their clients, and trade this information with one another for demographic marketing efficiency. The greatest benefits of all go to the consumer, of course, since they will have convenient access to online products of every variety for very affordable prices...that alone being more than enough justification for requiring them to absorb the costs of all the data-tracking that needs to be done in order for this infrastructure to exist.

The future is so bright, I need to dim my monitor!

Re:It looks like (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 years ago | (#20077353)

This is easy, the new internet looks like...

AOL!

Re:It looks like (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 7 years ago | (#20077691)

"Given that the primary activity of a civilized person is commerce, the new web needs to be optimally efficient for reliable business exchanges.

That means that any and every participant can be identified. Anonymity leads to fraud and hence it cannot be tolerated. If you post anything, it should always be possible to trace that back to you.

Also, there should be good record keeping of all online activity, not just for receipt verification but also for legal purposes. This gives the added benefit of making cyber-terrorism more difficult, and enabling a wider range of response options for law enforcement.

Also, there should be very tight controls on the sorts of actions that people can take online...."

Wow....I don't even know where to start to reply to this, I seriously hope this is a troll and no one truly wants this. If you were serious, man, I'd be scared to live in your world.

That first statement...I dunno, I work, I earn money, but only to live and have fun...it is NOT my primary concern. And commerce can and did exist quite well before the internet. Believe it or not, commerce was a late commer to the internet age...it wasn't invented for commerce, and I see no reason it should change and lose the things that make it great just to accomodate commerce. If they want a separate network for that, ok, but, not the common internet.

I can see the 'wild west' days of the internet coming to a close already, kinda sad. I personally like it unregulated, where any crackhead is free to spout off anything they want, and rant as long as their modem holds out. In the midst of all that's out there, I've found some interesting stuff, and some valid viewpoints that have changed my views on many things.

I hope they never take away the ability for Joe Sixpack or Thomas Genius to freely get on and publish what they want. That scares the govt. and those in power in some cases. That's why anonymity is often needed too.

If they lock down the internet (Web, USENET, etc...), it sure will make a day of surfing around a lot less fun and informative.

Re:It looks like (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | about 7 years ago | (#20077739)

Delicious irony, Mr. AC...

Re:It looks like (1)

Duhavid (677874) | about 7 years ago | (#20077741)

Well, hello, Mr Whitacre,

I didn't think you liked slashdot.

300 baud dial-up! (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 7 years ago | (#20077439)

If you can't beat the criminals, just slow them down to the point that it is more lucrative to go back to traditional crimes like robbing corner stores.

Oh dear! (0)

corychristison (951993) | about 7 years ago | (#20076741)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Oh noes!!!111!one!1 The intertubes is broken!@ We can rebuld it!



[So sorry! I just had to! ;-)]

Is this the one? (1)

UseTheSource (66510) | about 7 years ago | (#20076747)

I've been hearing about for a long time, but never materializes?

Re:Is this the one? (1, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 7 years ago | (#20077345)

Yup. The the stuff that makes the internet cool is the simplicity of the implementation, and the anonymity. The first step with all "new" internets is to break both of those things in the name of making it "better".

Stupid. All the privacy/identity stuff they want can be implemented in the existing framework using encryption and personal certificates, but start encrypting everything, and the government will shit its pants, so that never happens.

As for upgrading the protocols, etc, the fact is that simple protocols usually work better than complex protocols...Witness TCP/IP vs Token Ring. Wouldn't mind seeing some more robust networking to improve stability, but that's about it, and that can be accomplished within the current framework.

I know what it looks like (5, Funny)

Skreech (131543) | about 7 years ago | (#20076749)

A series of pipes.

Re:I know what it looks like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076823)

No, a parallel set of pipes. Didn't you RTFA?

Re:I know what it looks like (1)

fbjon (692006) | about 7 years ago | (#20077419)

No, a parallel set of pipes. Didn't you RTFA?
No, that's what we have now, according to TFA. The next internet would be a mesh of pipes.
I happen to have a preliminary overview of the design, although it's just the abstract:



#


Re:I know what it looks like (1)

edittard (805475) | about 7 years ago | (#20077591)

Didn't you RTFA?
I did, but it said "408 request timeout". It didn't say who to ask or for how long. I don't get why they seem to like that article so much round here.

I don't care what it looks like (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | about 7 years ago | (#20077513)

As long as I can stab someone in the face [bash.org] through it.

NeXT Internet? (1)

garcia (6573) | about 7 years ago | (#20076767)

It looks just like any other Unix implementation. Maybe a little black cube with some multi-colored letters on top. I call them sprinkles.

Oh, you mean after the Web 2.0 bubble bursts [slashdot.org] ? Probably like a deflated weather balloon just waiting for capital to be pumped in for Web 3.0.

Re:NeXT Internet? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20077231)

No, the NeXT Internet runs WorldWideWeb. Other UNIX implementations only get telnet, mail, USENET and Gopher.

Anonymous cowards? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076769)

>>"'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute.

How does that jive with anonymous cowards wanting to keep thier identity hidden?

Re:Anonymous cowards? (2, Funny)

iknownuttin (1099999) | about 7 years ago | (#20077155)

How does that jive with anonymous cowards wanting to keep thier identity hidden?

It would help keep your identity from being stolen. Which, I think it has. Just look at all the folks who have been posting under your name!

Re:Anonymous cowards? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 7 years ago | (#20077399)

They'd be dealt with along the lines of:"Only a criminal would hide their true identity."

Of course real criminals would have ready access to false credentials. There's of course nothing new to fake id, whether that's false passports, drivers licenses or whatever.

Re:Anonymous cowards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077417)

I dunno, I always thought we were just all the same person....

Re:Anonymous cowards? (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 years ago | (#20077551)

How does that jive with anonymous cowards wanting to keep thier identity hidden?
When I think online identity management, I don't think name, social security number, age, etc.

There just needs to be ubiquitous and robust means to confirm that Anonymous Coward 2058436658 is Anonymous Coward 2058436658. Whether you attach that identification to a real name & information (or not) should be immaterial.

I'm divided over any attempts to create a mandatory means of identifying internet users by age. On the one hand, maybe the government will create a walled off under 18 internet, which means the "think of the children" crowd can leave the rest of us alone...

OTOH, people under the age of 18 have lots to contribute to and learn from their elders.

Re:Anonymous cowards? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about 7 years ago | (#20077705)

OpenID solves your problem.

Meet the New Internet... (3, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 7 years ago | (#20076773)

Same as the old Internet...

Re:Meet the New Internet... (1)

Trails (629752) | about 7 years ago | (#20076865)

But the new internet comes with a lovely hat...

Re:Meet the New Internet... (1)

krgallagher (743575) | about 7 years ago | (#20077031)

"Same as the old Internet...

But we "Won't Get Fooled Again."

Re:Meet the New Internet... (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | about 7 years ago | (#20077245)

yea but THIS time, we have to keep the riffraff out...

My ideals on the "next internet". (5, Insightful)

necro2607 (771790) | about 7 years ago | (#20076775)

What should the "next internet" be? Wireless. Configuration-less. Always connected. High speed. Low cost. Cross-platform, cross-device, and accessible by even the simplest devices (wristwatch syncing to online time server?). Access/infrastructure not controlled by single corporations.

Ever seen the Ghost in the Shell [wikipedia.org] movies and series? Make that "Net" real. :)

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about 7 years ago | (#20076977)

Right on! And give me Major Kusanagi !! she is hAwt!

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

clubhi (1086577) | about 7 years ago | (#20076981)

My internet is wireless, configuration-less,always connected,high speed, cross platform, cross-device, accessible by even the simplest devices. Access/Infrastructure not controlled by single corporations??? I think I know what you mean but currently there are several corporations controlling it.

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

necro2607 (771790) | about 7 years ago | (#20077195)

Well, what I was getting at is the fact that there is ONE big fiber pipeline here in Vancouver that gives us our connection to the net. If the building that operates that key hub is destroyed, all of western Canada will probably lose net connectivity (unless there are other tier 1 connections I don't know about). To me, that is completely unreasonable. Not to mention that in Canada, only two main companies provide broadband. Telus and Shaw. Even if you go with a reseller, you're still on either on Telus infrastructure or Shaw (Rogers) infrastructure. Here's a great example of why this is bad: Shaw blocks all outgoing connections on port 25 for all residential customers. [www.shaw.ca] Oh, want to use mail.yourownwebsite.com for your mail? Too bad... either use Shaw's outgoing mail servers, or upgrade to a business-grade connection from Shaw. Hmm OK, that sure sucks. I guess I'll switch to Telus. Oh nevermind, they also block port 25, among others [broadbandreports.com] .

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 years ago | (#20077123)

I don't see why you'd want a wristwatch [wikipedia.org] to be contacting the internet. They only drift by about 10 seconds per year, and any extra exactness that you'd get from syncing with the internet, would probably be lost in battery life. The only time my watch drifts any noticable amount is when the battery is low, at which point it would probably be unable to contact the internet anyway.

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077273)

How else would my toaster IM me when my toast is done?

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20077285)

A wristwatch has an alarm function. I want this alarm to automatically sync with my calendar, and beep at me when I'm meant to be doing something. I also want it to be automatically updated to changes in daylight saving times, and to set itself to local time when I am travelling.

Oh, and I want it to be not more than 5mm thick, never need recharging, and be stylish and elegant. And a pony.

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

Spy Hunter (317220) | about 7 years ago | (#20077287)

You forgot "encrypted". IMHO *every* connection should be encrypted. The reason we don't do it today is the certificate management problem. SSL solves the problem with centrally-managed certificate authorities, but that's too much management overhead for use on the entire Internet. We could bypass the certificate management problem by simply doing encryption like SSH does: the first time you connect to someone you cache their certificate and use it for all subsequent connections. You can't be sure that this initial certificate is correct, because there's no truly secure channel to verify it. However, you *can* be sure that you are always talking to the same person, which is better than today's Internet where there's no verification of the endpoints at all.

Here's how it would work in the real world: at home, you visit Google on your laptop. You trust your home network, so you get Google's correct cert and your communication is encrypted. Later, you go to Starbucks and use the insecure wireless network. An attacker tries to hijack your connection to Google, but his cert doesn't match Google's so your browser notifies you and the attack is thwarted.

What if you get the wrong cert initially? You go with your brand new laptop to Starbucks, visit Google for the first time and get the attacker's cert. The attacker intercepts all your Google searches for that day. That's bad. BUT, later, when you go home, you visit Google and your browser notifies you that the certs don't match. Now you *know* that your earlier connection was attacked, and you can fix it so you're not attacked in the future, which is far superior than today's situation, where you would never know and would remain vulnerable.

In conclusion, even though an SSH-like scheme of caching certificates on first connection can't prevent all attacks, it would provide a much higher level of routine security for the Internet compared to today's lack of security.

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 7 years ago | (#20077659)

I agree, but I'd go one step further.

Everyone should be assigned a personal cert by a central authority as part of signing on. For communication where you want to be able to verify your authenticity, you use the personal cert. Everyone can use this cert for anything---encrypted communications, commerce, etc. In addition, they should be allowed to use it to sign and revoke keys for other systems such as web servers that act as proxy to a sale, provide a secure connection for ssh, etc. At that point, if someone knows your public key and trusts you as a person, they can then trust anything that is operating on your behalf by being able to verify that server's key against yours. Basically the way SSL works now, only without broken restrictions on use of virtual hosts with SSL keys, etc. The only big difference is that everyone should have one of these certs as a part of their ISP contract.

That key should also be a way to gain access to contact information. Instead of passing around your phone number, you could pass around a public key. By having access to someone's public key, the central agency would provide access to other information. Your cell phone would thus contain the public key of all your friends, and you'd be able to call your friend's cell by hitting a button even if his/her number changes.

By default, no communication should be signed with your personal cert. There should be a protocol by which one party can ask another party to sign a document, whether it be an invoice, a form, etc. For example, the final stage in a commercial transaction should be to use your cert to digitally sign a copy of the invoice, at which point, it can be charged to your credit card. The CC companies would provide a separate number for online purchases, and would not allow that number to be charged without a digitally signed invoice. At that point, the security of the account number is inconsequential as it should be, and thus, a website's encryption would be less critical.

Similarly, credit card companies should not be allowed to grant credit without a digital signature or a faxed copy of a birth certificate or other government-issued ID. That would stop about 99.999% of identity theft problems with one easy law. The vast majority of identity theft is caused by sleazy credit card companies and credit bureaus not taking even basic steps to secure the credit application process. We need tougher laws to regulate that industry, as they have clearly proven incapable of adequate self-regulation... but I digress.

Re:My ideals on the "next internet". (1)

ABoerma (941672) | about 7 years ago | (#20077719)

I'd like to add 'uncensored' to that list.

Save us from morons (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 7 years ago | (#20076797)

Sure we could have identity- at the cost of allowing either the government or a business 100% access to our surfing habbits. No thanks. Not to mention that it still wouldn't work- you'd need some way of identifying yourself to the computer, and thats still a weak link. Humans are easily tricked.

Mesh networks? Interesting for some uses, useful for places with no cellular or wifi connectivity. Otherwise just a hassle- low speed, sharing issues, and a high risk of man in the middle attacks.

I'll keep the internet as is, please.

Re:Save us from morons (1)

cbreaker (561297) | about 7 years ago | (#20076999)

I love stupid articles like this, because they mean nothing. Arbitrary, vague, nonsense.

The "Internet" is a very ambiguous term. It is what you make of it.

The physical connection doesn't matter. Wireless, mesh, wired, 10Gbit, whatever. It's just a medium change. Sure, faster allows you to do more, but it's just "more."

The protocols can change, and the applications running on it can change. It's still Internet. ISP's can come and go; doesn't matter.

It's already not all that anonymous, and adding special "identity management" just sounds redundant.

All crap.

Re:Save us from morons (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20077327)

I want identity in the sense that SILC provides. I have no way of knowing who a given 'fred' is, but I do have a way of ensuring that the 'fred' I'm talking to today is the same as the 'fred' I was talking to yesterday. If mapping a person or corporation's online entity to a physical identity is important then it should be done out of band, or via a trusted third party.

Re:Save us from morons (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077485)

Sure we could have identity- at the cost of allowing either the government or a business 100% access to our surfing habbits.

There are already several businesses and at least one government who have 100% access to your surfing habits today.

This sounds familiar (4, Funny)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#20076805)

"Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet"
Sounds like Web 3.0 will be built on one massive Beowulf Cluster after another connected together by a "series of tubes".

Re:This sounds familiar (1)

Damastus the WizLiz (935648) | about 7 years ago | (#20077073)

"Sounds like Web 3.0 will be built on one massive Beowulf Cluster after another connected together by a "series of tubes"."

Its Skynet!
look forward to Terminator: Web 4.0

Missing the point (4, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | about 7 years ago | (#20076809)

We don't need a new internet, the internet serves a purpose, and it does it well. What we need is something like the internet but designed to solve particular problems. A network with certified identity of all participants would be good for banking, and financial transactions, although it would be terrible as a internet replacement because part of the good of the internet is the possibility of anonymity. Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser. Don't take working systems and cram more stuff into them, make new systems designed to do what you want.

Re:Missing the point (1)

fbjon (692006) | about 7 years ago | (#20077511)

Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser.
Like flash?



Uh.. put that knife down..

Re:Missing the point (1)

Dr. Smoove (1099425) | about 7 years ago | (#20077519)

I know we don't need a new internet. We need new internets

the internet is for porn (5, Funny)

garlicbready (846542) | about 7 years ago | (#20076815)

exactly the same as the old one
except with more high quality Blu-Ray porn of course

HTTPS (1)

joseph449008 (1121209) | about 7 years ago | (#20076817)

"'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain" The second part is HTTPS. The first part is probably client authentication.

Re:HTTPS (1)

fbjon (692006) | about 7 years ago | (#20077615)

The first part is probably client authentication.
This could be useful. A standardized way of verifiably authenticating a user, and information about that user. Of course, only if the user wants to.

For example, I don't have a problem with a (pr0n)website automatically knowing my age, as long as nothing else is known. I could then make that info available to the world in some auth scheme, but nothing else. A shopping website might request my name and address, and I could grant that info on a case-by-case basis, and the info received by the website would be guaranteed to be correct and non-fraudulent. At the same time, I could of course do the same operation on the website.

Lots of possibilities open up, only... who will keep track of everything?

It looks like... (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 7 years ago | (#20076829)

the current one.

We're running out of IPs? Enter netmasks.
Too much SPAM? SPAM filters are top-notch now.
Virri? That's what *nix is for. =)

Seriously though, we need more bandwidth. The overall addressing scheme is fine: IPv6 works just great. BGP you say? That's fine too, so long as you configure it properly. The Internet is great and will continue to grow. Good luck overhauling the whole thing - just sit back and enjoy the evolution.

If ... (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | about 7 years ago | (#20076839)

If you have to ask, you're not invited.

One Word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076847)

Skynet

There is no next. (2, Interesting)

clubhi (1086577) | about 7 years ago | (#20076859)

This internet fad is about to die. BTW, it's kind of funny how close this is to an article about the next web bubble bursting... It seems like to me we would need a lot of programmers to work on the next internet.

A big truck, full of bribe money for Sen. Stevens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076883)

Since the current internet is just a series of tubes, the next generation will obviously be a big truck.

This will ensure that an internet (e.g. An EMAIL) sent by my staff will reach me. I depends on those Internets for my secondary income: bribes [cbsnews.com] .

Sincerely,
Senator Ted Stevens [wikipedia.org]

Evolution. (1)

UseTheSource (66510) | about 7 years ago | (#20076909)

FTA:

Researchers in the US want at least $350m (£175m) to build the Global Environment for Network Innovations (Geni), touted by some as the possible replacement for today's internet. In Europe, similar projects are under way as part of the EU's Future and Internet Research (Fire) programme, which is expected to cost at least £27m.

Why not just allow the current internet to evolve in the direction it will, as it has thus far? Why such an overt "redesign" effort?

(Yes, I'm aware that underlying protocols will (and have) gone through formal design processes, but there's still a certain level of "evolution" that occurs along with that formality.)

Re:Evolution. (1, Insightful)

NEOtaku17 (679902) | about 7 years ago | (#20077277)

It is that same central planning mentality that always pops up. People get scared of leaving things to the market because it will produce something unknown, but in reality it will almost always produce something better than what a central planner could have done. Leave the internet the hell alone!

No more anonymous cowards? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076911)

"Identity Management" implies the existence of "Identity Managers", which I find a bit distasteful.

Also, a non-anonymous internet provides even more incentive for identity theft. "No, no it wasn't me who was looking at gay porn. See, look at the ID"

These people have serious free time... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 7 years ago | (#20076919)

By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack.


That sounds like a man-in-the-middle attacker's dream. I like today's system of "connect directly from my desktop to my bank". Count me out.

Re:These people have serious free time... (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20077431)

You don't have a system of 'connect directly to your bank' unless you dial up their account with your modem (and even then you probably don't these days). I just checked with a couple of my banks. I had around 15-20 machines between me and each of them. All a mesh network does is make the routing a little more dynamic.

Re:These people have serious free time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077575)

Connect directly from your desktop to your bank? Do you honestly believe that's the way it works?

Interesting.

The first thing to come to my head... (1)

Zencyde (850968) | about 7 years ago | (#20076921)

The first thing to come to my head when reading this article was Kate monster saying "The Internet is really really great...". /sigh I spend way too much time on here.

Re:The first thing to come to my head... (4, Funny)

lilomar (1072448) | about 7 years ago | (#20077313)

"Normal People do not look at porn on the internet!"
"Ooooooohhhhhh? You have no idea!
Ready Normal People?"
"Ready."
"Ready."
"Ready."
"Let me hear it!"

Re:The first thing to come to my head... (2, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | about 7 years ago | (#20077429)

You're not alone. also... FOR PORN!

Here's a phrase... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076941)

...to fill your heart with joy.

"again revisits"

Fixed it for ya (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20076965)

There's a real need to have better identity management...
There's a real need to have better tools to track users with
there fixed it for ya.

to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to
Because damnit i need to know its a real 14 year old and not Chris Hansen and Dateline!

The "new internet" (4, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | about 7 years ago | (#20076985)

The new internet, if it ever comes to pass, will be designed by governments and large corporations. This will mean the following:

* No more anonymity. You'll need to identify yourself just to get onto the network, and protections will be in place to keep you from hiding behind a proxy. Your computer's unique ID will be registered in your name, and it will be available to the FBI, CIA, and RIAA upon request (no warrant required).

* Large barrier to entry. No more setting up your own server without getting special permission to act as a server. There will be a barrier between servers and clients, and consumers will be second-class citizens in this regard.

* Probably less spam. Tighter controls will make it harder for spammers to get their unwanted traffic into the intertubes. Also, now that it's possible to implement an email tax, email spam could be made prohibitively expensive.

* Better security. Locking the internet down will help somewhat in keeping the criminal element out, because it will (theoretically) be a lot easier to trace where they're coming from.

So, you win some, you lose some. There's a use for this kind of network, but only for secure transactions. I don't think a "new internet" is something that anyone here would want to use.

Re:The "new internet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077341)

>>Also, now that it's possible to implement an email tax, email spam could be made prohibitively expensive.

The meme that won't die. Somebody unimportant at the UN suggested taxing individual e-mails like 10 years ago but was quickly laughed down. The tin-hat, anti-UN crowd (and some Republicans) love to keep this meme alive.

When people talk about internet taxes, they mean something like cell phone taxes, not taxes on individual messages.

Re:The "new internet" (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 7 years ago | (#20077369)

Less spam, but more ads. Digital signatures through encrypted browsers with DMCA-backed hack prevention to prevent filtering out the ads. More ads means more annoying ads, to distract you from the other ads on the same page.

In general, I'd take our current Intarweb over that, warts and all.

Privacy concerns (3, Interesting)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | about 7 years ago | (#20077005)

Wiretapping and privacy concerns are already very prevalent as even at this point in time it isn't outrageously hard to track someone down online unless they are very good at covering tracks. I can't imagine how bad this would be when such information is kept and record as a standard.
I view this much in the same way as why a presidential election is kept as a secret ballot. Much of the information about browsing history and activities can reflect both positively and negatively on your own personal views which one should have the ability to keep private if they wish. In this way we can choose our religious, moral and personal views much more freely and need not tolerate unwarranted persecution.
I just hope this idea isn't being considered too seriously.

Paging the intentor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077021)

Will Al Gore be invited back to invent this one, too?

like a series of pipes (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 7 years ago | (#20077041)

tubes don't provide enough bandwidth

Where are the trolls? (4, Funny)

east coast (590680) | about 7 years ago | (#20077089)

Where is that idiot with the goatcx photo when it's finally appropriate?

This is the Internet 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077407)

Trolls and spammers got left behind along with everyone else who relies on anonymity.

Beat this man with a stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077105)

Someone, please? Anonymity and freedom are the greatest qualities of the internet. If anything internet should seek hinder those who would sensor it, not help them.

Internet... (1)

ZachMG (1122511) | about 7 years ago | (#20077151)

I'll build my own internet, with backjack and hookers. Forget the internet and blackjack. Ahh, screw the whole thing.

Change will be evolutionary (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | about 7 years ago | (#20077173)

Whatever the change, it will be evolutionary not revolutionary. We've got too much invested to have another red-letter day like the USENET Great Renaming.

Within a few years, expect almost every computer to have a TPM-like chip installed. It will be up to the user and the operating system to provide support for this chip. However, banks and similar web sites may refuse to talk to customers who are not using these chips.

What will the future hold? Some entities, like Banks, will insist on stronger authentication than today's 2-factor authentication schemes. In some countries, all web site owners and managers will have to register themselves in an authenticated way, so the government can track the owners down if the web site is used for illegal purposes.

Citizens in free countries will be torn between the need for accountability and the need for anonymity and privacy.

In non-free countries this will not be an issue except for those trying to evade regulations requiring all Internet users to register with the government or those trying to avoid tracking.

In relatively free countries, expect government regulations in the name of fighting terrorism, thinkofthechildren, and fighting fraud. Barring a major scare, expect such regulations to creep up slowly so the general public won't rise up in revolt.

Banks in the UK are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077201)

The result: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m
Living in the UK, moving here from another country, I can say that the bank security is horrible. A few interesting things: If someone gets hold of your account number they can send a letter authorizing a transfer to another account and the bank will have to honor the request (since the letter has your account number). The banks regularly send out transaction reports with... guess what? Yep, your account number. So someone takes your letter (which is easy to spot as a letter from the bank) and then steals your money. The banks' solution to this is not to fix this themselves but push the responsibility on the customer. They actually recommend the customers to buy a shredder to prevent theft of the account number.

Excuse Me, But... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 7 years ago | (#20077209)

By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack.

Well Excuse Me, But, two attack vectors are immediately apparent:

The single pipeline is a single point of failure.

Low power jamming, or simple data flooding, of the mesh.

ID theft is not an internet problem. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 years ago | (#20077217)

The root cause of identity theft is that the credit industry wants to lend without too much of checking and authentication. If someone has an impulse to borrow, they want to lend it immediately before the moment passes. If they issue a few bad loans they consider it cost of doing business. If criminals take advantage of it and borrow both the identity and the money, the credit industry does not care because there is no serious liability to the lender who lent the money. A few thousand dollars, big deal, cost of doing business for them. It is the victims of id-theft who raise a hue and cry.

ID theft is not limited to the internet. The waiter who takes away your credit card, or people who steal from your mailbox, or people who file a change of address form to intercept your mail, or employees who have access to the credit card numbers in the sales/accounting dept, employees in doctor's offices or hospital billing dept, can steal identities.

It is stupid to assume id theft is an internet problem or to find technical solution for it when there is no incentive for the credit industry to cut down on it. If a lender damages my credit rating by lax lending, the lender is liable for a sum like 10% of my annual income. Then they will clean up their act in a hurry.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (0)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 7 years ago | (#20077301)

If someone has an impulse to borrow
The logical question is: if we're in a nation which is so rich and wealthy and flush with resources then why is it that so many people need to borrow so much? You can drive through middle class neighborhoods everywhere, see people driving primarily ten year old used cars, and there's maybe two big screen TVs out of every 20 houses, everyone works full-time (or more), and yet _EVERYONE_ is up to their ears in debt?

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (2, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 years ago | (#20077465)

What are you talkin' about? None of my friends are in serious credit card debt. In my extended circle of friends nobody owns a car more than five years old. None of them rent. No body has serious debt credit card or HELOC.

In America there is no reason to drown in debt except for the extremely poor people. There is no public transportation infrastructure here. So the poorest of the poor are just one fender bender, one alternator failure, one radiator failure or one medical emergency from bankruptcy. Their car breaks down, they cant get to work, they get into very high interest rate credit and get into an never ending circle of debt. But for this section, everyone else is drowning in debt because of their own poor financial skills.

People drowning in debt still have digital cable and cell phones, they eat out in restaurants, live in huge homes they cant afford ... I dont have much sympathy for folks who borrow without knowing their limits.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077531)

The more you correct him with facts and evidence the more he insists he is correct. The dictionary definition of a troll.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (-1, Troll)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 7 years ago | (#20077579)

None of my friends are in serious credit card debt
"It's not a problem for us therefore it doesn't exist."

People drowning in debt still have digital cable and cell phones
So does practically everyone. Statistically insignificant finger pointing. How can you separate the people who have digital cable and cell phones who are in debt from those who aren't?

they eat out in restaurants
More statistically insignificant finger-pointing. How can you separate the people who eat at restaraunts into groups of those who are in debt and those who aren't?

live in huge homes they cant afford
Well, obviously, if they're in debt, then they can't afford their home. I wouldn't classify the middle and lower class districts, which comprise better than 60% of the total population, as "huge homes". How can you separate the total group of homeowners into those who are in debt and those who aren't?

Keep telling me more about what you think you know.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077497)

The answer to that question is that people simply get in the habit of living beyond their own means when given the oppurtunity. This isn't support for the conspiracies you are implying or have implied before.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (2, Funny)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 7 years ago | (#20077649)

I disagree with you. But, please, continue on telling me about the things which you think you know.

Re:ID theft is not an internet problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077709)

Yet offer no explanation for your disagreement. But, please, continue on posting your conspiracies about things you prented to understand.

Tubes of course. (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 7 years ago | (#20077251)

But hopefully we can adopt the Australian [hankstruckpictures.com] method.

Mesh networks and security... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 7 years ago | (#20077269)

Again, a mesh network will only be as secure as the individual system on the network. Once a compromise is found, then all computers in the mesh can be compromised if they are all running the same OS or software. Even having the mesh itself run checks on each other and disabling/re-installing on the corrupt systems will only work so long against any real attack or rapid prorogation security breach.

encrypted, decentralized p2p network (3, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | about 7 years ago | (#20077415)

I personally would like to see a decentralized, encrypted p2p network. Using PKI, we could create a system where you send an encrypted email out into the p2p network. It's passed around until it gets to its intended recipient, who has the decryption key. Since it's encrypted, nobody else can read it. Because of the PKI, you can be certain of who sent you the email, that it's really from them, and that nobody intercepted it on its way.

Now instead of just email, change this to any kind of data. Create your own username with a private key, and you can use it to get access to data directed to you on any machine connected to the PKI network.

Want anonymity? Just create another identity.

Re:encrypted, decentralized p2p network (1)

orclevegam (940336) | about 7 years ago | (#20077493)

Freenet is very similar to this, but suffers from being incredibly slow. I loved the idea when I first heard of it, but after trying it and having to wait 5 minutes for any sort of content to load I gave up on the idea. The problem is that there needs to be some way to intelligently perform routing, just passing data down the stream doesn't cut it in a decentralized environment.

Yes (2, Interesting)

newr00tic (471568) | about 7 years ago | (#20077571)

Good enough idea, but internet[0] can already do this.

Proceed to shitlist everyone that you've yet to arrange a keyswap with, and enjoy fully encrypted communication.

(--If both parties agree that a bond via electronic communication is 'important enough,' you'll soon see your f[r]iends converted to encryption in an eyeblink..)

Should you wish to 'invite' more people once they turn responsible, you're free to do so.

(Effectivity by using lowest acceptable sanity-denominator.)

Internet 2 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20077421)

We don't need another Internet. We already have one.

There is no next, just evolution (2, Insightful)

deckert_za (837816) | about 7 years ago | (#20077425)

It's not as if the Internet is going to be turned off one day and the guys in the hard hats will say "okey folks, turn on the new one!".

The Internet as we know it will always improve a series of small steps and as time goes by it will get faster, and improved. The one year your local Telco will offer 512k DSL lines, the next they suddenly have 4mbit lines available. But inbetween there was 768k, 1024k, etc.

--deckert

Well.... (1)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | about 7 years ago | (#20077487)

This certainly solves the problem of anonymous hacker gangs!

Re:Well.... (1)

orclevegam (940336) | about 7 years ago | (#20077613)

This certainly solves the problem of anonymous hacker gangs!
On steroids!

The real issues, and how to fix them. (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 7 years ago | (#20077503)

There are only a few major issues:

  • Identifying sellers. If you're a seller, you can't be anonymous. That's the law in California and the European Union, but enforcement is weak. We're dealing with that at SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] , where we try to find the business behind the web site. If we can't, we downgrade their search ranking.
  • Identifying buyers. That's a problem for the credit card industry. If they really considered it a problem, they'd fix it. They have the tools. One-time credit card numbers, confirmation by cell phone, smart credit cards - solutions are known.
  • Spam Spam by legitimate businesses mostly died with CAN-SPAM, because anything clearly identifiable can be easily filtered. Everything left comes from crooks. And not very many different crooks. Notice how few different spams get through your filters. What's left is a law enforcement problem. Someday the main Viagra spammer will be found and arrested, and that problem will shrink. The US SEC is working the pump-and-dump problem.
  • Vulnerable clients Make Microsoft financially liable and the problem gets fixed, fast.
We don't need to redesign the Internet, much as some telcos would like to so they can raise rates. All the major problems are at the endpoints.

Easy (1)

Synonymous Dastard (1126353) | about 7 years ago | (#20077631)

It will be exactly the same, but with a new 3D shiny logo.

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>