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!

Former FBI Agent Calls for a Second Internet

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the it-became-necessary-to-destroy-the-internet-to-save-it dept.

The Internet 486

An anonymous reader writes "Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet. Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials. The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight, which is why he claims we must change the structure of the Internet."

cancel ×

486 comments

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

Hmm... (4, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582802)

Will the second internet have Third Life?

Re:Hmm... (5, Insightful)

Idefix97 (725474) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582994)

Although Dempsey says that a solution "might be" a second internet, which to me sounds silly, he does make some very valid points on how cybercrime needs to be handled across borders.
It seems that many countries just want to forbid things, with regards to the internet, rather than adjust to a new way of looking at crime committed through the internet.
If it turns out that law enforcement can't or won't adjust to the speed in which cybercriminals operate, maybe the only way to help prevent crime is to educate the users, or even help write better software (against spoofing etc.).

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583256)

Only if populated by pequininos.

Translation (5, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582814)

"We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you."

Re:Translation (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583176)

"We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you."
Notice that he isn't complaining about the domestic situation. He essentially wants to reincarnate AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, etc of the 80's and 90's because creating walled gardens is easier than convincing foreign countries to change their laws. WTF?

He can't have a legislative solution, so he comes up with a technical one.
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.

Re:Translation (3, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583386)

Yeah, and also you probably have less spam and phishing due to transparency.
The US military is taking a step in this direction with Common Access Card (CAC) readers.
I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like /.
Dunno if credit cards/cash makes a good analogy for the two use-cases, but it least the analogy lacks wheels.

VPN (5, Insightful)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582816)

Someone give this guy a VPN.

Um, no (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582840)

Sorry, but changing the "structure of the internet" because some former policeman says it would be a good thing just ain't a persuasive argument. If anything, take whatever he says and do the opposite.

In other words ... (5, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582842)

"We're too stupid to deal with this interweb thingy, so we need the entire world to change how things are done to accommodate our incompetence."

Yeah, that's going to happen.

Re:In other words ... (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583304)

It doesn't seem like you understood what he actually said.

"the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet ... has much more to do with the fact that the legal systems throughout the world vary greatly and take a very long time to change."
He's complaining that the rest of the world's laws are the stumbling block, not the USA's incompetence.

That said, I agree with your conclusion.

Re:In other words ... (5, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583332)

Actually, it has little to do with stupid. What started as random voices against the internet from various corners several years ago is now solidifying into a very firm and well-funded opposition to a the free internet.

The reasons of the different parties vary, but they are all pushing consistently for the same outcome -- a monitored and controlled internet. Most worryingly, their lobbying and scare tactics are increasingly getting results.

First, everyone under the hat of IFPI and the various Recording and Movie Ass. of wherever are in the game as their business model is evaporating. They want more restrictions and more monitoring, so that they can eat into your consumer surplus better. Most other copyright and related rights owners jump on this bangwagon, as they have strong vested interest in having their monopoly to be extended in various ways.

Then, there are the newspapers and the TV -- in addition to belonging in the first group, they feel their revenues are being eaten by a random collection of bloggers, aggregators and other uncontrollable internet evils that deliver more targeted and interesting commentary faster and at lower cost. Besides, their relevance as propaghanda tool (and their position as "the fourth power") is also threatened, and they'll fight hard to keep it.

Finally, there is the government. The establishment want to know more about you so that they can tax you (and, in general, manage you) better. Surveillance is always a boon to them, and anything that can bring more is very welcome. Especially lobbying groups like those above, who make seemingly "legitimate" cases for more surveillance and control. But it doesn't end there. The internet is also a threat to the establishment in that it allows exposure of their questionable activities; it keeps track of their past deeds. This threat makes the life of the establishment politicians hard, and they'll fight to remove it. Bribery is a big source of income, and threats to it are hardly welcome. Finally, the internet allows "fringe politicians" and large groups of people to gather behind a cause quickly and efficiently. This tends to make, among everything else, lobbying less efficient, and decrease the amount of legal bribery income.

And, this push against the free internet is happening everywhere. Draconian internet laws have sprung fast virtually everywhere in the past year or two - the US, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Korea, which suggests what happens is not a random process at all.

Re:In other words ... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583410)

Excellent post, Good Citizen siddesu. One wonders whether this dufus feeb, Dempsey (although I realize he's not on the up-and-up), has ever heard of Intelink? Thought not. And for a most excellent site appropriate to your post:

Art of Mental Warfare [artofmentalwarfare.com] .

Ummmmm, no. (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582844)

"Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet.

Ummmm, no. What he means is that they want to form a new network that can routinely be filtered, scanned and probed with no means of anonymity (already going away) or flexibility.

Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials.

How about figuring out how to deploy a network within your own agency first, that agency employees can actually use?

Re:Ummmmm, no. (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582976)

yup. there are plenty of old fashioned brick & mortar ghettos full of criminals too...

Re:Ummmmm, no. (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583096)

yup. there are plenty of old fashioned brick & mortar ghettos full of criminals too...


Yeah, last time I was in Washington, I saw a few. One of them is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the other one is on the opposite end of the Mall.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583120)

To be fair, it'd be about as easy to start a new internet is it would be to fix email's fraud problems.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583148)

calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt.

I believe the number is 1 in 5.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (1)

ComputerSlicer23 (516509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583238)

yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

Yeah, but that's a totally difference case. In that case, you know where to send the agents to physically pick up the criminals. So your comparison is fundamentally flawed. You also know that you have jursidition where the criminals are if they are in that neighborhood.

I agree with what you are getting at, but this sentence is flawed. It'd be nice if the Internet still had anonymity, but still be vastly more secure then it is. That's possible, but it would still get in the way of law enforcement from catching the criminals. However, that's their problem, not mine. I mean, it'd be handy if they could just stop every one at checkpoints, but I'm certainly not going to back that.

Kirby

Re:Ummmmm, no. (3, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583246)

"Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials.

How about figuring out how to deploy a network within your own agency first, that agency employees can actually use?"

More importantly, how about ending crime by extreme economic inequality, tax breaks for the rich and going after tax havens?

I'd rather see money spent on Prevention rather then re-action, making a society that people don't feel the need to turn criminal to begin with.

Human beings have this awful tendency to neglect the human environment and thus they bring revolution and crime down on themselves for their apathy and neglect.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (5, Funny)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583380)

Pulling common sense into a discussion about law enforcement is practically unamerican. We want more criminals, but harder penalties. Prevention doesn't fill jails, buddy.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583268)

I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals
You mean Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC?

Actually, yes. (5, Funny)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583328)

"Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

Actually, the internet is a sanctuary for cyber criminals. You don't find cyber criminals holding up armoured trucks at gun point, regular meat criminals do that, you find cyber criminals on the interwebs. That's why they're cyber criminals. The intertubes are a sanctuary for cyber criminals for exactly the same reason that the FBI is a sanctuary for corrupt FBI agents.

I totally recommend creating a second internet, and a second FBI, a second stock market, a second local primary school. Everything.

No one thing should get all the cred for harbouring criminals. If people want to be paranoid and really stupid, let them be paranoid and really stupid and have a good laugh at their expense.

Re:Ummmmm, no. (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583366)

I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you?


That would be a big YES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE [wikipedia.org]

On May 13, 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department attempted to clear a building in which the MOVE members lived. The police intended to remove two wood-and-steel tactical bunkers constructed by MOVE on the roof by dropping a bomb made of military grade C-4 and a water-based gel used for mining explosions called Tovex. The resulting explosion, and the decision by Police Commissioner Sambor and Fire Chief Richmond to let the bunker burn caused the house to catch fire, igniting a massive blaze which eventually consumed almost an entire city block and left 240 people homeless. Eleven people, including John Africa, six other adults and four children, died in the resulting fire.

to the FBI.. (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582850)

I don't care about your needs to "successfully fight cyber crime" which to me translates to "successfully sniff out rats".

I care about speed, anonymity and integrity of data.

Re:to the FBI.. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583034)

"Successfully fight[ing] cyber crime" can fairly important when it comes to integrity of data. Unless you decide that fighting cyber crime is really up to network administrators or something like that. In which case we may as well make phishing and hacking and whatnot entirely legal or something... internet theft, etc.

not that I actually support the former FBI agent's idea. actually it seems to be pretty stupid, heh.

That annoying "internets" word will be real! (4, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582854)

That very annoying "internets" word will be real and I won't be able to threaten to kill a puppy every time sombody that should know better uses it.

Re:That annoying "internets" word will be real! (4, Informative)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583178)

There are already two.

"internets" has been valid for a long time (1)

Chris Daniel (807289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583240)

Indeed, as another replier said, there is already an Internet2. However, even before that, "internets" was a valid term. See RFC 1918 [faqs.org] , titled "Address Allocation for Private Internets".

While we are at it why don't we create new cities (5, Insightful)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582858)

Since major cities have more crime than before why don't create new cities.

But the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet is not necessarily due to lack of cooperation among international law enforcement bodies."
As opposed to extraditing murderers, mafiaa members etc is easy with respect to "traditional" crimes?
Why hire competent people who technology as tools and adapt your law enforcement agency when you change the world around you to adapt to your incompetence?
And for those who says "Think of the children": No law can effectively parent your child for you. Do you damn duty.

Re:While we are at it why don't we create new citi (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583152)

Since major cities have more crime than before why don't create new cities.

They are doing this gradually. Remove all the tree, bushes, gardens and parklands that criminals hide in. Place homes close together so that there are no alleyways for criminals to hide in. Require that people make sure that their homes have iron bars over the windows and doors so that no one can break in. Surround office blocks and residential areas with high security fencing and place CCTV cameras everywhere so that no area is unmonitored. Have biometric scanners to make sure nobody isn't who they say they are. Make sure that all financial transactions are logged and audited electronically.

It might not be a fun place to live in, but at least no crime will go unpunished.

Yay (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582862)

When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.

Re:Yay (1)

Brobock (226116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583396)

When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.
Hi, we are from the government and we are here to help you.

Also... (5, Funny)

TheWizardTim (599546) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582864)

... the FBI want's a pony.

Re:Also... (2, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583306)

Why is there an astrophe in wants? :P

If only I had a nickel (1)

jbr439 (214107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582888)

for every time I've heard: "our code base is crap, let's rewrite it from scratch".

second Internet (1)

gambolputty3 (1247532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582890)

Apparently this FBI agent hasn't heard about the Internet2 yet. This is an existing high speed network used mainly by colleges.

Re:second Internet (1)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582962)

"Three, sir!"

Good idea..but (5, Insightful)

Alphavox (1211354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582892)

What do we do when the second internet is overrun? Building a new internet everytime "cyber-criminals" get on it sounds expensive...

Re:Good idea..but (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583014)

Good point. Just have marketing come up with a new buzz word and tell everyone why its "new". Look to anyone of Microsoft's upgrade programs marketing for ideas on how to resell the same product.

Re:Good idea..but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583046)

We can call it Web2.1.

Re:Good idea..but (1)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583212)

easy, we virtualise the internet, that way we can have many internets and if one gets over run it can be deleted and replaced with another one.

Re:Good idea..but (1)

drox (18559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583270)

What do we do when the second internet is overrun?

Build another. And then another after that. It's internets all the way down!

Building a new internet everytime "cyber-criminals" get on it sounds expensive...

Not when it's someone else's money.

Re:Good idea..but (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583370)

Think of it like a Medieval castle: in layers. The outer wall is Internet 1.0. The inner wall is Internet 2.0 and the keep is Internet 3.0. We'll keep going deeper and deeper into hiding from these cyber-Barbarians while under siege instead of actually confronting the underlying issue. Bullocks to this idea. Internets 1 & 2 are just fine. We don't need another one!

Second Nigeria (5, Funny)

Viking Coder (102287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582894)

If only we could create a second, more secure Nigeria.

Re:Second Nigeria (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583118)

If only we could create a second, more secure Nigeria.


Very simple, simply apply a liberal number of nuclear weapons concentrating on population centers in Nigeria. Before you know it you have a much more secure Nigeria than ever before. At least for the next couple of centuries. What is the half life of plutonium anyway?

'replace'? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22582906)

There really is no internet in such a way that you can just 'replace' it.

The 'internet' is simply many computers connected together, interchanging data over cables. I could create my own internet, for example, using different protocols and such, and creating my own sever system, browser, and etc.

It just doesn't make much sense to 'make' a new internet. The internet is the world, and you just can't replace it.

Moreover, what would prevent me from doing the above and bypassing their 'secure' measures? Censorship never works.

Well gee, who's to blame for that? (1, Insightful)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582910)

How many times over the years have we read about incidents of cybercrime, where the FBI was contacted for assistance and promptly blew off the victim because they didn't lose enough money, or weren't some big important corporation?

They weren't interested in nipping the cybercrime problem in the bud in the early years, and now the internet is a hive of scum and villainy.

~Philly

Re:Well gee, who's to blame for that? (2, Insightful)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583140)

This guy is angling for a huge budget to do with what he wants. Which is probably scouring the Internet for free porn during office hours.

Re:Well gee, who's to blame for that? (3, Funny)

pedrop357 (681672) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583376)

a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Security is impossible (4, Insightful)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582922)

There is only so much we can do to secure any network from attack. There will always be ways to spoof identities, and commit illegal acts. Retooling the whole thing won't make a different in that regard. We may up the bar a little, but that won't last for long. People will think of new ways to work around what we can think of today.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind an overhaul on DNS and SMTP to slow some spammers and other jerks down.

The real problem is the diverse nature of laws between different countries and the strong enforcement in some places and near zero enforcement elsewhere. Think about it, someone in Russia can do almost anything outside their country and not be prosecuted. In other places, we have parts of the Internet filtered because of some lame moral code.

I just wish these people who don't understand the spirit of the Internet would take their marbles and go home.

Re:Security is impossible (2, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583106)

The real problem is the diverse nature of laws between different countries and the strong enforcement in some places and near zero enforcement elsewhere.

From a defensive perspective, the problem is that most people are really bad at recognizing phishes, hoaxes, scams, and the like. At this point, 100% of the email forwards I get from my 60 year old aunt have been debunked. Most people just lack that "this is bullshit" detector.

I'm sorry.... (2, Funny)

nebaz (453974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582932)

I'm not going to be lectured about the internet by Dr. McDreamy.

The police would like to jail everyone (1, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582942)

If you listen to the police, they would like to jail everyone "just in case", "just to be sure" or "for our own good". It's not for nothing that there are concepts like "probable cause" and courts, because you cannot trust the police alone to do a good job in the first place.

***

Some years ago, I was investigated by the police following a web page in which I disparaged a spammer (where I live, there is no freedom of speech). The spammer managed to convince that the page was somehow illegal; it took something like 5 months to the police to figure out who I really was, and all along the way I could hear them loudly stomping like the fuckingly clueless marching morons they are. When they finally directly got to me, I told them to fuck-off, as they didn't happen to have jurisdiction. Despite the thinly veiled threats of siccing the local cops on me, I held firm, told them to fuck-off, and eventually, I learned that they would not press charge as they weren't convinced that the charges would hold in water...

What will this fix (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582952)

When you read about a bank system being hacked in order to steal 100,000 accounts, more than likely this crime was committed by perpetrators overseas, and there will almost definitely be a connection to organized crime.
I got a great idea. Lets give everyone an account, so we know which account hacked our bank accounts.

BBC series (1)

Ricin (236107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582956)

Makepeace: "Oh butt out, you're just hung over. Again."

Re:BBC series (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583168)

"Life is hard then you die."

If you are lucky!

Mr Dempsey, head of the internets (3, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582960)

The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight, which is why he claims we must change the structure of the Internet.

Oh that's just great. So just because poor mr Dempsey woke up one day believing that someone wasn't ready for a fictional fight then we all should just drop the world's communications infrastructures and rebuild it according to mr Dempsey's vision. For the sake of those poor unprepared legal systems, of course. And also the world's safety. And the children, now that we are at it.

What mr Dempsey is advocating is nothing more than taking over the control of the medium. No one has it and he wants it badly, claiming that it's in everyone's best interests to be controlled by an overreaching, totalitarian organization. Well guess what mr Dempsey, the internet works great just as it is and no one benefits from having a righteous mr Dempsey, head of the internets, fighting the fight that those poor, fictional legal systems are supposedly incapable of carrying out.

Hold your breath, (former) Agent Dempsey... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582972)

I'm sure you look good in blue.

International crime means new internet? (5, Insightful)

flabbergast (620919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582982)

"If we accept the fact that the greatest hurdle in arresting international cyber criminals is that various legal systems just aren't prepared to address the speed at which these crimes occur or the various nuances that are unique to computer crimes, then the question is: What can we do to fix the problem?"
So, he goes from acknowledging that there's a jurisdictional problem and a speed problem when it comes to law enforcement to creating a new "verified" internet where you have to "prove" who you are? Umm..no.
And he goes on to hit every hot topic in security today: DDOS, identity theft. spam, etc. And then, he makes the claim "the fact is that Internet crimes are almost always international crimes." And he doesn't back it up, rather gives anecdotal evidence of a hacker in Russia using computers in Thailand to steal data.
I am not a security expert (and I'm not pretending to be) but this "sky is falling" mentality is crap. Most identity theft (the act of stealing) is not done over the internet, its done locally. Yes, selling lists of thousands of SSNs and credit card #s happens over the internet, but the thievery itself doesn't.
In fact, this would make things worse: you're creating a global ID. Once someone steals your global ID they can do whatever they want. And once again, your ID wouldn't be stolen over the "new" internet, it would be stolen because you didn't shred a document and someone went dumpster diving.
This doesn't solve any problems.

I don't think... (1)

Paiev (1233954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22582986)

Once again, though, we're confronted with the issue of what would be the governing body that would manage the user registrations?
I don't think this is your biggest problem with creating a "second internet" here...

or do we need to establish an entirely new entity to manage a more secure Internet?

Which, of course, would be regulated by the US government.

Has this guy thought for a few minutes about the implications of having a "second internet"? It's the dumbest idea I've seen since the /. article this morning about having a "UNG" (I mean seriously, wtf? If you expand the thing, it becomes "UNG's Not GNU's Not Unix").

In other news... (1)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583020)

Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo! Shopping, and every Internet Banking website has decide to stop all online transactions and go back to traditional manufacturing and distribution chains because top business analysts working closely with the FBI found that cyber crime has caused insurmountable loses. They are also looking in to replacing our existing currency system to curtail the massive amount of crime and fraud not found on the Internet.

i'm gonna go build my own internet! (5, Funny)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583026)

.. with blackjack, and hookers!

Re:i'm gonna go build my own internet! (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583160)

Forget the blackjack.

Re:i'm gonna go build my own internet! (4, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583162)

The internet already has blackjack and hookers.

Security (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583040)

The reason why the internet is so powerful is because it's unsecured. It's even designed to be unreliable; everything is designed to expect failure. Imagine a system that's totally secured, that means that every packet on it is known and vetted. And more importantly the origin and destination is logged and tracked. In practice such a system would be hard to enforce and would be stifling to commerce and innovation, IMHO.

Re:Security (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583202)

To say nothing of how such a system could be used to initiate very targeted attacks against specific individuals. :)

A Sanctury for Cyber Criminals (2, Insightful)

doas777 (1138627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583044)

saying that the Internet has become a sanctury for cyber-criminals is a lot like saying the physical world has become a sanctuary for (non-cyber) criminals.

Both are probably true.

Re:A Sanctury for Cyber Criminals (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583360)

saying that the Internet has become a sanctury for cyber-criminals is a lot like saying the physical world has become a sanctuary for (non-cyber) criminals.

Both are probably true.

True. But wanting one set of laws for everybody on the planet and things made easy for the cops to make arrests is ridiculous. Let the cops work for a living instead of consuming mass quantities of donuts.

Digital Immigrants vs. Digital Natives (4, Insightful)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583054)

I won't disagree with the assertion that the internet is a game-changer when it comes to criminal investigations, but the idea that we should castrate it for this reason is ridiculous. The dinosaur who raised this complaint is clearly a digital immigrant. Most of his generation lacks the level of familiarity necessary to effectively investigate crimes involving the internet. The problem goes beyond a simple matter of training. A good investigator needs an intuitive understanding of how people interact with their world, including the internet, more than they need an intimate understanding of protocols.

The next generation of investigators will be digital natives. They'll have grown up with the web, email, blogs, message boards, IM, flickr, youtube, social networking, and the like. They won't all have CCNAs, but they'll have a sufficient understanding of how people use the internet to know when to bring in forensic experts.

The transition will be difficult. The digital immigrants with extensive investigative experience and the digital natives who are novices in their profession will have to cooperate and exchange their knowledge and wisdom, and in the meantime, some criminals will slip through the cracks. That's the price of progress.

Typical government reaction (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583060)

This is typical. He wants to throw away the Internet because it can not be controlled and scanned by the government. What a moron! Or is he simply pushing to get IPV6 implemented to replace IPV4? That would serve the same purpose for the most part.

Of course then the real criminals (those called politicians) would resort to other means to conduct their business. Like VPNs. Oh, wait, so could everyone else!

He needs to adapt or get out of the way. Change the laws and get the cooperation between agencies setup before investigations have to be initiated. But I guess that sounds like work. And we all know government employees work as little as possible.

Re:Typical government reaction (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583192)

If you think that elected officials are real criminals versus people who steal large sums of cash from banks, then you need to read something other than the Ron Paul Newsletter.

Re:Typical government reaction (3, Informative)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583322)

Of course elected and appointed officials are real criminals. Mark Twain said it best,

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain ...

Re:Typical government reaction (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583408)

What laws have they broken *just by being congress men*?

I don't have to prove anything (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583068)

From the article...
"...a new, more secure Internet where users would be required to register prior to gaining access."

I already have to do ridiculous things like 'prove' who I am before boarding a plane, I'm sure as hell not going to jump through anymore government hoops for something as simple as internet access. And what would this 'registration' require? SSN? Birthdate? Can people be put on a 'no-internet' list? Who has final say over who is allowed access? What would keep people from filling in junk info like I do on every website that requires registration?

It's scary that this guy thinks that he knows technology, but doesn't have a clue that his plan is blindingly stupid.

Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583070)

Fuck off.

Why stop at two? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583074)

We should make a thousand internets if it will make us safer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Real Internets.... (1)

TrueDego (1214140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583088)

Wheres Al Gore when you need him?

Good Idea (3, Insightful)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583104)

Let all of the various conglomerates move all of their online advertising, and shopping, and noise to a new internet.

We all stand and applaud, then cut them off from ever returning to the old internet.

Then we can go back to the days of sharing information and having fun without that stupid "punch the monkey" ilk...

spam is just a special case of "cybercrime" (5, Funny)

Darkforge (28199) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583132)

so we can re-use our old forms. It's a bit surprising how effective this is.

--

Patrick J. Dempsey, your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting international "cybercrime." Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from nation to nation.)

( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) legitimate Internet uses would be affected
(x) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) it is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) it will protect us for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) users of the Internet will not put up with it
(x) microsoft will not put up with it
(x) the police will not put up with it
(x) requires too much cooperation from criminals
(x) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

specifically, your plan fails to account for

(x) laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) lack of centrally controlling authority for the Internet
(x) open relays in foreign countries
( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) asshats
(x) jurisdictional problems
( ) unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) huge existing software investment in the Internet
(x) willingness of users to install os patches received by email
(x) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes
( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) extreme profitability of international crime
(x) joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) technically illiterate politicians
( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with criminals
(x) dishonesty on the part of criminals themselves
( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) blacklists suck
(x) whitelists suck
( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored
( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) sending email should be free
(x) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) i don't want the government reading my email
( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

furthermore, this is what i think about you:

( ) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
(x) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Common but fallacious reasoning (4, Insightful)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583158)

1. I can't do my job because of X.
2. Changing X would fix that problem.
3. Therefore, we should change X.

With no regard for whether X has any value of its own. Open your eyes and look outside of your own field before you decide to change the world in your favor.

Re:Common but fallacious reasoning (1)

uglydog (944971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583334)

But having a second non-anonymous internet might be a good thing. At least we could give it a shot and see how it goes. What if it's great for businesses? It might make phishing much harder.

ummm (4, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583164)

"The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight..."

I think Mr. Dempsey misspelled 'all'...

typical law enforcement drumbeat (5, Interesting)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583166)

"Doing law enforcement is getting harder, so let's change the rules"

I see this now in almost every arena of law enforcement... and for good reason. It *is* getting harder to do low enforcement. The thought process is something like this: "As law enforcement, we know we're failing; we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect." Basically enforcing laws is a traditional behavior. It is the way to maintain stability and control on society and in a similar way that traditions maintain cultural norms. Traditional behaviors are the antithesis of innovation.

Technology is changing at a breakneck pace, and increasing in the speed of change. It is hard, nigh impossible for large, bureaucratic, rules-based organizations to keep pace with innovation in technology, and the concomitant adoption by criminals.

The disturbing thing is that instead of law enforcement innovating to keep up with the demands of the job, many in law enforcement have lobbied successfully to change the rules of the game. This is most true in the United States over the last five years with the tired dirge: "give up your liberties or the terrorists will win".

I think the correct solution is to change the way we do law enforcement. Change the people who do it. Make smaller, more nimble organizations. Change the speed with which law enforcement operates. Remove entrenched, non-technical savvy deadweight from organizations. Incorporate the latest technology. Change quickly with the rest of society and keep the fundamental principles that make open society possible and successful.

And for christ's sakes, please stop degrading people by forcing them to take off their clothing and shoes to board an airplane. I know, it seems totally off topic, but the same idea we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect.

A new internet (1)

TehZorroness (1104427) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583174)

... Would be a wonderful think (but hardly in they way imagined by this character). If you take a step back, our current "internet" is really a ball of crap. The domain system is horribly abused and disorganized (everything lumped under .com just because grandma can remember it. And then throw in the cybersquatters...). The standard for producing documents (html/css+javascript) is horribly complicated and not universally supported in the same ways, and many people loose site of what it is they are trying to accomplish when developing websites (conveying information in a document vs. throwing in bells and whistles). Many of the things html is stretched to do could be better done in other ways.

At first I thought he was crazy (4, Insightful)

dubl-u (51156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583182)

Upon reading the article summary, I thought the guy must be nuts.

After reading the article, however, and carefully thinking about his ideas, I've concluded that he is instead an idiot.

Has this man never heard of Metcalfe's Law [wikipedia.org] ? His second, registration-only internet will be about as popular as BITNET [wikipedia.org] and Telenet [wikipedia.org] are these days. (Yes, Virginia there were globe-spanning networks before the Internet. It's true!)

While he's at it, he might as well call for a second telephone system, one that only allows people to say nice things.

not for me (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583190)

I already find the current internet to anti-my-privacy.  My ISP, in particular can have an incredible amount of knowledge about what I do, which makes me very very nervous.

MSN (1, Troll)

suckmysav (763172) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583222)

Perhaps they should contact Stevie B. He might have the old MSN blueprints handy from the mid nineties. I'm sure he'd be thrilled at having a second shot at replacing the internet.

Former FBI Agent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583258)

does the phrase : 'Former FBI Agent' mean anything...../?

In light of the real issue: (5, Funny)

merc (115854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583260)

Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law:

I call for a second FBI.

t tought THIS IS the second internet (1)

ariefwn (130137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583264)

and the first one is something called Aol

We'll call the 2nd one 'Internet3' (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583280)

'Internet2' is taken apparently.

Patrick Dempsey? WTF? (1)

morbiuswilters (604447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583290)

Patrick Dempsey? WTF?

I know this is probably redundant, but I'm drunk and don't give a shit.

It already exists but you don't want it (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583296)

If the Olympic-Hosting Overlords can have it [wikipedia.org] , why can't we?

*sarcasm*

In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583310)

Anonymous Coward warns that the real world has become a sanctuary for real criminals and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure real world.

That's stupid (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583312)

Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet.

Duh. Why don't they just make crime illegal?

Or, to put it another way...

Your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting crime. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Criminals can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop crime for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from criminals
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
...
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Proof of concept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22583314)

Every couple of months someone hooks up a $50 Linksys router to my company's IPSEC-secured network, leaves DHCP on, and brings the network to its knees. Flurries of email ensue, "Don't reboot your machines!". There's then a half-day hunt until we find the moron who plugged the stupid thing into the corpnet and pound him (or her) with bars of soap.

Meanwhile, IT has started a "Incident Process" with "Investigation Status" pages and "Incident Response Metric Reports" and is collectively useless.

I'm really dubious that the FBI is going to be any more useful, response-wise, than the bloated, self-important IT staff here who couldn't track down a MAC address with less than five meetings and a "Wups, we need to develop a new web page for that kind of issue" memo.

The FBI's likely response to any kind of threat: Pull the plug on the whole thing ("for the children!"). Yup, that's the kind of thing you want to base a country's commerce on.

Hmm... (2, Interesting)

Gm4n (1139093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583330)

I suppose that you'll need to have a national ID card before connecting to this second internet.

Go ahead Mr. Dempsey (2)

ISurfTooMuch (1010305) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583352)

Go ahead, Mr. Dempsey, start your new Internet. You act as if creating a new one requires some sort of special permission, but you'd be wrong. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating another Internet using TCP/IP or whatever protocol you like. You can design it any way you want. You can even run Web servers on port 90210 if you like. Hell, you might even find a way to run the whole thing on NetBEUI. I doubt it, but don't let me kill your dream. I'm sure MS will be glad to modify it so it'd work...for a price. So you go right ahead and start your new Internet. Get everything set up, then you can get back to us. If we like what you've built, maybe we'll come over for a visit. I doubt it, but don't let me discourage you.

Interesting idea... (2, Funny)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583364)

Now, maybe I'm mis-remembering here, but I seem to remember hearing about this little doo-dad called "Internet 2." You know, for scientists and certain authorized parties and such.

But yeah, we definitely need to get to work on that "Internet 3." Screw Web 2.0, I'm already on Internet 3!

-G

Buggy Whip FBI (4, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22583394)

Yeah, and these newfangled "automobiles" make it so much harder for the cops to catch crooks, since the cops now have to move so much faster, and even cooperate with cops in the next county. Instead of the cops getting automobiles and some radios of their own, we should get rid of automobiles, make them illegal, and instead give everyone some other kind of automobiles that all have cutoff switches in their motors that cops can stop with their radios.

And no criminals will ever figure out how to wire around the cutoff switches. Then cops can just go back to being lazy again. Oh, and by the way, we should let the cops trample all over our rights that we discarded because protecting those rights was too much work.

I feel safer already. Don't you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?