By SN
Saturday October 17, 2009
Slashdot – October 17, 2009:
“Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs, is calling for an end to the anonymity of the Internet, 
and for the creation of mandatory ‘Internet passports’ for anyone who wishes to browse the Web. Says Kaspersky, ‘Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport … the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong … to introduce it in the same way.’ He calls anonymity ‘the Internet’s biggest security vulnerability’ and thinks any country that doesn’t follow this regime should be ‘cut off.’ The EFF objects, and it’s likely that they won’t be the only ones.”
#56 I know it will upset you…so I’ll share with you this…
Some “gays” objected to my preaching against homosexuality…so they conspired to kill me…
My room window was easily accessible, if someone climbed to the roof to which it opened…and a pair of assassins did just that…
While I soundly slept, they searched for my window…unable to find it…although it was easily seen…and wide open…
The next morning, after they had wandered as though blind for hours…and giving up…my neighbor, a gay…was amazed…
He said: “You should be dead…they were serious…how is it they didn’t find your window?”
I replied: “It wasn’t my time…when Jesus wants, I will die…if at their hand…so be it…I am ready.”
#52 Alfred1
Its not often I agree with Marx (Karl, not Groucho), but in your case the quote ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’ rings home. You seem to be so doped up on the stuff that you feel no fear, and you see your addiction as giving you the power, nay the divine RIGHT, to do whatever takes your fancy since you can justify it through the Bible, no matter how psychopathic, immoral and bigoted.
You say socialism is dangerous, and mixed with totalitarianism it is, but the opiate of religion is far more so.
Back to the thread, I agree with some of what you say about anonymity and its impact on the quality of debate, but to debase anonymity by implying that ‘you have nothing to fear if you’re right’ seems to me the result of a mind clouded by that same opiate.
#60 John C Dvorak should comment on this…his is an expert opinion…I don’t know what to think…till the experts, like John, advise me.
When I said I couldn’t see a downside…it does not mean there is no downside…expert opinion would be appreciated…to help me see things in their proper perspective.
Alfred1
I also belive in total surveilance (thats what this is) but ONLY if EVERYONE has access to the surveilance.
MEANING : I can monitor my neighbour, my neighbour can monitor me and that I am monitoring him (what/when/how I am monitoring him).
This would prevent corruption, taxfraud, wifebeating, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism etc.
It would kill the porn industry though.
Realityshows would be pretty pointless too…
Wow.. only positive effects..
Anyone have any possible negative sideeffects?
Realized I was off in two respects on my last post. .1% bad, not .01% and 10M bad users, more like 1M at any given time. Oops.
I see this as beneficial for companies in two respects.
First is a sort of “LifeLock” for the virtual world. They are protecting your identity, man…. that would be worth $30-50/month at least.
Second is a fee for universal quality of service. Maybe the net will be neutral, but YOUR access would depend on how much you are paying per month. Instead of one line you get charged per person. It would also simplify who to sue when Garth Brooks wants a new mansion(previous thread).
There are a ton of threats in this that make it a horrendous idea, but I will narrow it down to one. The “universal” ID has always been hobbled by a glaring weakness. Every ID can be counterfeited or stolen. Once you make an ID universal the benefits and risks of false IDs rise proportionally.
If you leave your email client up and some office joker sends the boss a nastygram under your name… well, this is an international system protected and supported by Verisign, MSoft, Oracle and the top 50 comp-sec companies… You might find your ass in the street.
When people are “sure” they can identify you then penalties assessed can be increased without worrying about false positives.
A second pernicious effect would be to allow holes in the system to become more profitable. Nigeria doesn’t seriously chase scams, so Nigeria has a thriving scam industry. Someone is always looking the other way either for profit or due to incompetence.
If the answer, in the Nigeria case, is to shut Nigeria off the net… fine, no harm done(except they often use remailers and recallers out of the UK). But WHO in their right mind is going to call Putin and tell him Russian hacker activity has caused TOS violations and account cancellation?
# 61
Again – WOW..
Again – speechless..
My hope is that you are a troll.
Live long and prosper!
Peace!
BTW : I know you think you answered my question in my hypothetical scenario, but you really did not. You just proved yourself to be a religious nut with no empathy.
Live long and prosper!
Ever heard of the Federalist Papers? Think such a thing would be possible in a society without anonymity? I think not.
#64 a straw man…I believe in freedom…
Death to the statists…and their controls.
However…I’ve decided to listen to the Doors…”The End” (having been reminded of Nam)…and pop a few Silver Bullets…so…later dudes…
# 68
You know nothing abour freedom.
you christian? yeah right
you a troll? HELL YEAH
Yo, goombah, -how about not putting vital information systems on the net
-don’t ya just love how they are slowly trotting out all these “important industry extremists” so the twisted egomaniacs that make law can shape the pretext for turning the internet into a high security prison for thought..and feel good [and vindicated] about it in the process.
-s
Lies and slander are a small price to pay for the freedom of the net. Think of the big picture.
This is not the first time I have heard the idea of an ‘internet passport’ floated. I don’t know if it originated from Kaspersky, or someone else, but this idea has been floated by various people for at least the last 6 months (that’s when I heard it first – and I’m not on the ‘leading edge’ of the Freedom of the Net thing). And, many lawmakers are aware of it.
Let’s face it: the net is limited by the nature of its infrastructure. This permits all kinds of manipulation and control, state, corporate or whatever.
Solution?
I don’t know. May be we need to start thinking about a parallel system, more of a mesh, perhaps, which would be much more flexible and much harder to throttle, filter, censor, control.
#69 Incorrect…I am an American…we are, like the founding fathers, quite diverse…and responsible…
However, after the Doors, comes Frank Zappa….and that requires my attention…so sorry…perhaps later I will address your non seqiutur—that is: >your irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent response.
“Call any Vegetable…and the chances are good, a vegetable will respond to you” (-Zappa), as you did.
#8
You sir are a genius. Kaspersky will talk about controlling the internet as he is a Russian in the end. Blame Putin!
Eliminating anonymity online, as opposed to specifically on the Internet, simply isn’t possible. Anonymity existed in the BBS system long before the Internet became popular. Further, if one government decided to mandate identity, other nodes on the Net would crop up and block it.
Arguing that the elimination of anonymity would help catch criminals is akin to the argument that NSA used in their attempt to block public knowledge of encryption systems. The argument is empty. The cost of government corruption is order of magnitude higher than the cost of anonymous speech. Free speech does mean hearing people say things with which you disagree or even hate. That is the price of freedom and it is a bargain.
Tar and feahter that man and run him out of the country. He should feel right at home in China working for the government. Well the elite Democrats all seem to like Castro so maybe they like Mao too.
What a douche! And nice hair and beard, bet he doesn’t get laid much.
Anonymity is, at the same time, the Net’s greatest asset and its worst drawback.
On the one hand, Thomas Paine at first published Common Sense anonymously (probably wisely).
On the other hand, the botnets, with the threat of DDOSs attacks for money or national intimidation have become a serious menace and it would be a much better world if it were possible to identify (and possibly temporarily cut off) each individual zombie computer.
I don’t know where the balance point is, but I suspect it’s just a little farther down the road away from total anonymity.
Sorry folks! The only thing I can think that happened was when I dropped the fucker on his head when he was a baby. And we use to shake him.
We need to keep the internet free of any government regulation. Period.
Don’t need any great conservative ideas some ID card to browse it. I don’t care how many children will be saved.
Holy communist Batman! Obviously this madman shouldn’t be loose! Sounds as if he was bullied on the playground as a little boy, only to grow up and have sand kicked in his face at the beach. Should his insideous plot come to fruition, he could be deploying troops to lay siege to my home, for this comment, the moment I hit ‘Submit’! FYI: I never liked the inferior quality products his company churns out. Please sir, would you kindly vanish into oblivion with your boyfriend?