Driver's licenses for the Internet

What makes you think that the world's governments can create a secure identification system for all of the internet users in the world? You mean, like a driver's license? Those can't be faked, right? Or the social security number? Spare me.

Leave authentication to the web site owners who have a business interest in protecting their assets.

As the New York cartoon says, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"

When I took office, only high energy physicists had ever heard of what is called the Worldwide Web....

Now even my cat has its own page.

Bill Clinton (1946 - ),
announcement of Next Generation Internet initiative, 1996

http://japan-russia.jimdo.com/caricature/

(enters the contradiction of every comment posted, center stage)

"Hi guys!"

No. A thousand times no. This benefits no one but "the people in charge".

Drivers' licenses ensure a basic level of driving competency, so that 13-year-olds don't get drunk and drive into a schoolbus. That kind of stupidity doesn't happen on the Internet.

Drivers' licenses (or other global ID's) don't prevent willful maliciousness from happening. A hit man with someone's wife in his trunk might have a spotless record.

And, as has already been mentioned, ID's can be faked.

Enough security theater! Focus on actual security. Truly awful idea, Barbara.

I, for one, welcome our new internet overlords. It will be a comforting time when "the law" comes along to protect people from themselves on the net, because gosh darn it, freedom is dangerous. Not to mention, standards only ever come about through coercive government action, and never through private parties responding to their own incentives.

No, it is not needed. If the law needs to find out, they can find out who it was already in most cases. Even with some sort of system like that if I wanted, I could still hide my identity to the point it would not be traced back to me.

Is the author still going to feel that way when someone uses your or someone's "internet drivers license" to commit a crime when they do not want it traced back to themselves? You would only be giving them a way to track you or others that might need some sort of protection on the internet, not the ones actually doing things people would need protection from.

Actually being attached to your own identity on the internet would be wonderful. You would build a reputation based off of your actions towards other people and others would treat you according to how you treat others. I think this way it would stop some of the ignorant and childish behavior that is rampant among the internet.

Imagine the internet where people had to live by their decisions.

What an awesome suggestion. I have been blogging and posting about Cyber criminals who have attacked and violated innocent citizens like me on line and through the use of other technology.

The police, FBI and other agencies appear to be SUPER reactive in handling these matters.

Criminals like Nigerian fraudsters have all but cornered the market in online fabrication of identities, breaking into and altering legitimate government and other sites, stealing people's likeness, corporate espionage here in the US etc.

They continue their acts with impunity.

As I have always stated here and elsewhere, while the length of the run of identified criminals is finite, the growth and acts of these crooks is further encouraged by the apparent mass ignorance of the general public (including the press) about the acts of these felons.

It is my hope that more people understand that even if they are not targeted now, crimes which are not curtailed and rigorously prosecuted all too soon become a canker which requires very significant resources (governmental and otherwise), to quell.

It is amazing that the average so called enlightened user does not recognize even simple facts that your cellphone microphone can be used to rove and spy on you by any criminally adroit low life criminal.

Technology has made the crimes of so many vagabonds much easier to implement.
Of course, the Internet is bursting with misinformation on technology criminality and its implementation, misinformation posted and distributed by these same felons and their cohorts.

You think Nigerian criminals even here in the USA are just sending emails in order to rob Americans??
The same thing they have done for so many years??? Technology has been developing but apparently someone somewhere imagines these felons are unmindful or unaware of the crimes they can now commit anonymously online??? How silly!

Even when identified, these crooks still run around law enforcement conning and misleading them.

The Internet was not created with such a large user base in mind, however it has grown exponentially without regulation.

People take it for granted that it somehow promotes free speech therefore that singular redeeming quality makes up for the fact that it is the singular MOST effective tool for Adult and Child Predators and Stalkers to attack and violate innocent citizens.

People have to become more enlightened, the laws have to be changed, governments should be able to better monitor and prosecute technology based crimes.

Let us start with the most basic of description changes---

"Crimes against the person committed through the use of technology are not CYBERCRIMES—the targets are people... human beings. Those crimes should be described and defined as what they are –CRIMES!!" They are
crimes committed through the use of technology.

If an adult is stalked, abused, robbed and violated through the use of technology, those crimes are felonies, the targets victims of crimes, and the people who commit those crimes are common criminals!! Criminals who should be treated like their “real time counterparts”-tried and jailed.

The Internet is an integral part of daily life for most people. The only crimes committed online are not financial, Abuse, violence, kidnapping, theft all occur through the use of technology. People who commit these crimes against other people using technology belong in Federal prisons.

A crime is a crime is a crime. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. The means to the eventual completed criminal conduct should not be so gray. So long as a crime is committed the felons should do time. That is the LAW. Technology adroit criminals deserve no different treatment. They should be hunted like other common felons.

The explosion of technology crimes is imminent. One only hopes that government agencies are pro actively monitoring this growing threat and preparing to meet it with the knowlwedge and dexterity it takes.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

Leave it to a Microsoft research engineer to come up with this one. It sounds like Microsoft wants more control than what they already have, like spying on other competitors and their software applications.

I would sure stay away from this idea, its a bad idea gone worse.

I think bloggers ought to be fingerprinted, DNA tested for abnormalities and have the information safely stored in a government vault. That way when some authoritarian ruler of pit, decides you have broken his self made tyrannic law he can prosecute you. For being a journalist you sure are s----d, anonymity protects the right of free speech especially when the scary internet is most dangerous in a nation that prosecutes freedom of speech and opinion. The biggest thugs and criminals you mentioned are corrupt governments. I bet you love China's safe internet measures huh? But there are worse than China. Have you ever heard of what happens to whistleblowers in these shams of nations? You ought to be arrested for ignorance on the rights you endow, your big mouth and little faculty. And while your at it you should have to be taxed for opening your mouth on the internet, after all someone has to pay for the ID cops.

As far as Microsoft, I'm sure they have all the ideas how to implement this protection software with DRM. Most everyone of technical savvy know how well that works. Look it up and while you are at it look up the abuse of Microsoft and how Linux is a much safer alternative than its foes with silly control notions of biometrically cataloging all our personal information and forcing a foisting an insecure operations system such as Vista on us. Maybe microsoft see the internet as scary because they never learned how to protect their kernel from hackers and friends. I bet when they designed Windows, they just figured their buddies would be the only users (what a joke!)

I'm tired of English majors thinking that they know so much, when most have a speech impediment and brain malfunction and should really take a serious class of "shut up 101" on what they don't understand or know. I bet you never got liberty or tyranny in history class did you?

Oh I get it, you get paid for every comment that draws ire and blood. At least that would retire you from plain st-p-d to to just plain amoral.

The internet is the only thing preventing total tyranny right now, and they are trying everything they can to chill free speech. There is NO grass roots movement anywhere calling for government intervention in the internet. It is not broken. It works too well, that is a problem for tyrants. Obama wants to redesign it so it can be centrally shut down. They want ID's to track you and chill government criticism. Maybe put you on a terror watch list. Do not accept ANY argument for ANY gov intervention no matter how good it sounds. NONE! Also, look for anyone promoting it so you know not to trust them with any other news.

Seeing how Microsoft respects the rules and regulations of countries like China, I'm sure they will be the first to hand over the IDs when China comes a knocking. If Google suggested Internet Licenses, than I'd know we were scrogged. Thank goodness that Google along with all the other sane Linux community will be replacing the defunct has been Microsoft as the 10 ton gorilla. In a few years, Microsoft and its despised worthless operating system will be sitting in the garbage alongside my commodore 64. But at least the commodore 64 was really miraculous for its time, unlike Windows a market lagger and staller. That's because Microsoft has no creativity, no backbone, and represents no one except their own self exploits. Yeah I used to defend Microsoft, but like this author I was immature and brainless in my youth.

Anonymity is necessary on the internet to protect free speech, especially political speech in the reality of the systems that have been designed by corporations like Cisco for policing Chinese thoughtcrimes. Anonymous speech is Supreme Court affirmed and enjoys 250 years of American tradition.

Talk of authorizing and licensing Internet users is pure Authoritarianism to it's core.

Bearing that in mind, this article is curious coming from a writer who's bio mentions "how Verizon really got her angry by asking for her Social Security number".

Can you say, "Cognitive Dissonances"?

No public accessed and used system like the Internet--used by all sections of the general public (Adults and Children alike) should be run without LAW.

For some inexplicable reason, Federal law enforcement is slow and unable to keep citizens safe from technology adroit criminals who commit acts against people.

Breaking into email is treated with levity while breaking into post office mail carries a stiff penalty and a FEDERAL JAIL SENTENCE. I think the distinction is absurd. Mail is mail and tampering with mail should be a crime whether that mail is electronic or manual (on paper).

The Internet is not a virtual world that exists on its own. It inextricably and absolutely entwined to real time. Infact many people conduct almost all aspects of their lives online. These days, to rob a person, you do not have to go their home.. you break into their computer and steal their passwords, identity etc. and your can pretty destroy a person's life.

Almost anyone can apply for a job online and get interviewed in "real time". You can chat with someone online and make a connection in real time, meeting one on one.

It is absurd for anyone to tout deregulation as the same thing as to be without law.

The Internet cannot remain like a wilderness WITHOUT ANY strong deterrent or LEGAL framework/standard to STEM and stop the growing bred of technology adroit vermin.
Criminals who will do anything to rob, steal and even kill.

As an example, I met a woman whose daughter was lured away by a Predator.

He had a fake identity on line (his picture and all other information was fabricated). Her daughter is presumed to be the dead woman whose body parts were found in the area in which her daughter was last seen.

This woman was stalked online for years as well by the man whom she believed eventually murdered her daughter.

In the course of promoting awareness about the growing scourge of technology criminals, I have met an incredible number of women (especially) who are assaulted online and violently criminalized by 21st century technology savvy hoodlums.

Stalking and tracking a person is a crime, and since that involves breaking Federal laws, these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the usual Federal guidelines. This does not happen frequently!

The Internet is a community of the world and governments should regulate and protect users of this forum.

If criminals who abuse these technologies by tracking, stalking and violating people (some Nigerian fraudsters in the US and UK now commit corporate espionage and theft using technology as their weapon of choice) are not investigated, prosecuted and jailed, Technology crimes will be much worse and more vicious in the future.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

Will I be allowed to text while I am surfing?

The issue with most attempts to stem the tide is it is just plain wrong logic: keeping the honest people honest, letting the dishonest have free rein.

In TX we saw the introduction of PI licensing requirements for someone doing the most rudimentrary of computer security assessments, you do not think tools, false identities and attack vectors will not continue to profer...and now we are going to make available a database of the good guys to be under almost certain continous attack as it is considered pulbic knowledge?

And I do disagree with the original intent of WWW not being for the free exchange of information, that was its intent, what was quickly learned is the resources should not be free. And remember the cost of computing and HD space was extremely expensive way back when. Here we are, jumping all over the ISPs for wanting to do non-capture packet inspection for bandwidths utilized way over the norm, but then we can talk about an idiot idea such as this? We know authentication for almost all financial transactions are extremely weak, and the perhaps the biggest obstacle is the inside "greedy" person. And then yeah, you have the stupidity...like the Town Manager embezzeling town funds for a Nigearian Scheme (although she had long, upstanding credentials in banking and finance.)

Nope, I'm going to disagree. We have to allow the capture of information, the reverse engineering, and the companies (whether public/private) the right to monitor their networks.

Authentication is no where near where it needs to be to even be debating this topic.

The Internet may be the last bastion of Free Thinking
left on the Planet. Your rationalizations in support of
Global Oversight are both Orwellian and Marxist.
Please stay out of our laptops. You are an unwelcome
intrusion into our last mode of True Freedom of
Expression. Paranoia does not become you. Nor
does Authoritarianism. This Progressivist agenda
does not bode well for Individual Liberty. But can we
expect a Swiss to appreciate that? I mean no offense.
Can we really expect anyone in Europe to value
anything even remotely close to the Libertarianism
that America was founded upon? Hey, I like Euros
and I'm something of a Continental Rationalist.
So please don't take my assertion as a negative
judgment call. Take it as a valid counter claim to
the author's original premise.

Oh my what an awful idea! I won't go into the absolute detail but I'll make a few points.

1) Craig Mundie is a businessman who sells, among other things Microsoft's 'trusted computing' and 'digital rights management' software. When I last examined their offerings both used, indeed required, a system where every user was forced to identify themselves with a unique nonanonyous and nontransferrable ID. Both systems in fact failed without it.

Like Larry Ellison, head of Oracle who devoted time after 9/11 to talking up the virtues of massive government databases, Mundie would make large amounts of money if this were to pass. If the one world government or whomever chose to make us all identify ourselves and only use a "trusted ID" then they would need to buy it from someone and it just so happens that Mundie is in charge of selling that. Indeed I know of no other company that is pushing this kind of technology so Mundie would have a lock on the market.

Indeed, without such forcing the fact is there is no market. Noone has purchased the trusted computing technology in large amounts and Microsofts limited introduction of DRM into Windows Vista was not welcomed by the genral public. So Mundie's products aren't moving and likely won't unless the one world government forces us to buy them.

2) Despite your brief aside about 'ID's can be faked' that is, in fact, quite important. They can and would be faked, and the use of valid ID does not guarantee innocence. I am under the impression that some of the 9/11 hijacker had fake ID while others actually had valid identification which they did present upon boarding the plane. So an ID regime does not make any guarantees. At best one can trace information after the fact but, as you said, IDs can be faked.

3) In a response to Lawyermommy, yes bad people do hideous things on the internet. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Indeed, in many ways they are. Better prosecution would be good but technology which can, and will, be faked is not the answer nor is a change in our policy. A massive system that trades all anonymity of honest people for no appreciable gain in security (the stupid criminals would already be caught) is not useful.

4) Anonymity is not evil. Indeed as other posters have pointed out anonymity is the bane of oppressive governments, cruel tyrants, and vindictive bosses. This is why protection from unreasonable search and seizure is written into the U.S. Constitution. it is also why the Constitution deals with such issues as quartering troops in peoples' homes. This is why the colonists who staged attacks on British tea chose to disguise themselves and why Benjamin Franklin published under a number of pseudonyms.

Do you really want a world where every boss, ex boyfriend, etc can track what you do online to you? Keep in mind that during the last election government employees were fired for accessing personal details from the candidates. What would stop any existing official from digging up dirt on their political enemies, as J. Edgar Hoover founder of the FBI did? Or any vindictive individual from tracking your friends?

Indeed the bottom line is that this won't work. Consider the "Great Firewall of China." Ultimately it is an expensive failure. It does not protect average citizens from online scams, predators, or basic verbal abuse. Nor does it even allow the authorities to block political opposition or undesirable information (their actual goal). Indeed online sentiment is still so negative that they have taken to paying people to say nice things online and to identify opposition (50 cent army). Nevertheless they spend an increasing amount of money on it each year to minimal gains.

Any such system would require a one world government to implement or Nigeria would make a mint doing anonymous work. The amount of money that would have to be spent would be excessive and ever increasing as new technology would develop. At best it would catch dumb criminals and stifle legitimate but unpopular views or allow those in power to stifle dissent. And the only real winners would the the company that develops it. It would have to be controlled by a single company or, as with the Nigeria case, it would likely fall apart. Even then it still would because that company would need to get hardware and software made somewhere and as a recent article in Businessweek showing that U.S. purchased weapons systems (jets I believe) were being sent to them with incorrect, but physically identical, chips indicates monitoring of all hardware and software is not an option.

At the end of the day the answer is locks. Rather than set up government cameras on every corner to see who might walk into our unlocked doors we install locks. And we educate ourselves individually about not using insecure operating systems or giving out personal details online. It is cheaper, not subject to government control, and ultimately more effective. Yes people still break and enter but as Britain has discovered, cameras do not prevent crime.

Mundie skipped over a number of other options along these lines. One could, for example, use a different operating system that does not have the history of bugs, holes, and virii that Windows is saddled with. These include MacOS, GNU/Linux, and BSD none of which is made by Microsoft. One could also install virus protection, which Microsoft does not, or a firewall, which Microsoft did not for years after the others have.

But I think that I've made my point.

Nice Microsoft ad by the way.

Absolutely hideous proposal.

Being anonymous is how I protect myself. How can identifying myself to all the thieves on the Internet protect me? My identity is unique and I'm quite easy to find given the right pieces of information. This is precisely why social security numbers are insecure.

Microsoft is historically a backwards-looking company that only looks hi-tech to people who are so far behind that they do NOT immediately see every Microsoft product as a "Microsoft version of product Y" (often preceded by years of telling everybody that nobody really wants product Y).

So it's not surprising that a Microsoft CTO's solution to bring law and order to the Internet is to copy something old and inappropriate that barely works in the environment that it was designed for -- a "driver's license". Cuz, yeah, nobody ever fakes a driver's license

But the failure of driver's licenses gets to the real problem. Real security on the Internet probably depends on really reliable authentication, which will probably have to be biometric.

I'm going to have to admit no surprise here. I'm sure the Obama administration will be one of the first to sign up. I disagree with the author and the idea completely. She uses the analogy of getting to walk into a bank vault and being required to show I.D. Bad analogy. A bank vault is private property and the owner of the bank has every right to limit who gets in and how may "hurdles" must be cleared. We can do the same today with any internet website. Why do they think all the goofy log-in requirements were created? The amount of “hurdles” (security) required is left up to the owner, just as it should be. In addition, I'd like to see someone set up a Visa account for victims in Haiti without a paper trail. We take credit cards and you practically sign your life away to Visa/MC in order accept their cards. PayPal is very stringent, too.

My opposition is knowing the government, if they choose to do so, will observe all that John Q Public is doing on the internet. It is none of their business. The government cannot enter my home and look at the books on my shelf, or read my mail (including - email), without my permission or a warrant. (That pesky probable cause requirement rears its ugly head again!) Do you think they'll get a warrant if they want to know the websites you've been visiting or the people you've been corresponding with? Do you think the Obama administration would have asked supporters to notify them of citizens who were saying “fishy things” online or taken matters into their own hands? I'm sure the Bush Administration would have loved this, too. Put a pretty name on it...something like "The Patriot Act".

Let's talk about web-fraud. In many (most?) cases, banks make money off credit card fraud. I made this discovery when we were being pounded by fraudulent attempts on our ecommerce website. We never had a fraudulent transaction get past our security (it was cranked up as high as we could get it) and there were many nights when 400 attempts were made! Over the years, tens of thousands of attempts were made and we paid $0.25 for each one! In addition, if product had been shipped we would have had the funds withdrawn from our account in full plus a fee for the trouble (I believe it was about $35.00) Be advised, there are no minimum security requirements by the banks. Only the account number and expiration date have to be correct and they'll approve the transcation. it's companies like Authorize.net, paid for by the merchants, that prevent most of the fraud. (Other than being a customer, I have no affiliation with Authorize.net) Many banks tell their card carrying customers, “no worries, you have fraud protection and are only liable for $50 maximum”. Many banks waive this entirely but some still charge a fee. Therefore, it is possible for a bank to make $85, or more, on a fraudulent transaction and ALWAYS leave the merchant holding the bag. The merchants have no recourse. To add insult to injury, internet merchants are charged a higher percentage for accepting credit cards due to being “high risk”, yet it is the merchant who suffers ALL the exposure. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the banks would want to kill this cash cow. I'm also waiting for card carrying customers to start asking banks why the would be held liable for any financial transactions they did not execute and the BANK APPROVED. Ever wonder why any online transaction doesn't require complete name, address, expiration, phone, CVN, and even a PIN for approval? These are simple to implement and of little nuisance to the consumer but they would increase the difficulty of committing fraud exponentially. I've also wondered why banks don't REQUIRE photo I.D. when handing a merchant your card. Years ago a major bank started putting photos on their credit cards to limit fraud. They don't do that anymore. My guess is it cut into the bottom line too much. Any automated card machine should require a billing address zip code and/or a PIN at minimum. Electronic signatures are worthless and I have proven it by intentionally scribbling just to see if it would reject the transaction. Signatures are for assigning blame after the fact, not for preventing fraud.

If banks were the ones suffering the losses, they would take action to limit them. To prove my point we have recently experienced difficulty with our debit card. We frequently buy materials in bulk that run from $1500-$4000. I prefer to do business using a debit card because it allows immediate shipment, the merchant pays less in fees (as compared to a credit card), and I don't have to set up an account with the merchant and go through the billing process. This saves us and the merchant a lot of time and energy. When we first got our debit cards, the maximum daily limit was $1000. This was insufficient for many of our transactions so we had it increased. Half a dozen times over the years the maximum daily amount would be “reset” to $1000. Of course, we discovered this not through notification by the bank but by a failed attempt to process the card. (Great customer service!) Now, our bank refuses to increase above $1000 daily because, “they are liable for all the monies that are stolen from an account”. They keep telling me to, “get a credit card, that will shift the liability away from us”. Yes, those were her exact words! By shifting it back to the merchants the banks will realize a profit from the fraud.

I am looking for a new bank. The first one I inquired with told me they could see about increasing above $1000/day once the account was set up but couldn't make any promises. In the end, I may set up accounts and begin hand writing checks again. I'll admit some satisfaction knowing the bank won't be getting a percentage. If we all did this, the banks would change their behavior.

I think your response is either just ignorant or deliberately misleading either way, I am racing out of the house and so I recopied your post and responded briefly to most of your outrageous and unsupportable Averments!

"1) Craig Mundie is a businessman who sells, among other things Microsoft's 'trusted computing' and 'digital rights management' software. When I last examined their offerings both used, indeed required, a system where every user was forced to identify themselves with a unique nonanonyous and nontransferrable ID. Both systems in fact failed without it.
Like Larry Ellison, head of Oracle who devoted time after 9/11 to talking up the virtues of massive government databases, Mundie would make large amounts of money if this were to pass. If the one world government or whomever chose to make us all identify ourselves and only use a "trusted ID" then they would need to buy it from someone and it just so happens that Mundie is in charge of selling that. Indeed I know of no other company that is pushing this kind of technology so Mundie would have a lock on the market.
Indeed, without such forcing the fact is there is no market. Noone has purchased the trusted computing technology in large amounts and Microsofts limited introduction of DRM into Windows Vista was not welcomed by the genral public. So Mundie's products aren't moving and likely won't unless the one world government forces us to buy them"
_________________________________
My response: You have awarded the contract to Mundie?? This was a suggestion that came from ONE organization.

Mundie?? Did you award him the contract???

The Social Security numbers which citizens have is used for many other purposes and is managed by the government.

Because this suggestion came from the private sector does not mean that it would be their responsibility. In fact, implementing security on such a massive meduim like the we WILL NOT and CANNOT contracted to the private sector alone.

The remark above falls into the category of arguments I repeatedly am provided by the new breed of 21st century criminals who stand to gain the most from the present state of the wild and dangerous Internet and the ignorance of the general public of the Technology tools that can and are being used against them.
___
"2)Despite your brief aside about 'ID's can be faked' that is, in fact, quite important. They can and would be faked, and the use of valid ID does not guarantee innocence. I am under the impression that some of the 9/11 hijacker had fake ID while others actually had valid identification which they did present upon boarding the plane. So an ID regime does not make any guarantees. At best one can trace information after the fact but, as you said, IDs can be faked.
_______________________________
My response:
Even though an ID can be faked and some people did use their real identities in 9/11 and some criminals do so during the commission of a crime.

A FAKE identity is a red flag which can set off the needed investigation which would be required to stop criminal acts. If you have a group of crooks, you only need a couple of them in custody to begin to unravel their criminal conduct.

_________
"3)In a response to Lawyermommy, yes bad people do hideous things on the internet. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Indeed, in many ways they are. Better prosecution would be good but technology which can, and will, be faked is not the answer nor is a change in our policy. A massive system that trades all anonymity of honest people for no appreciable gain in security (the stupid criminals would already be caught) is not useful.
____________________________

My response:
Most honest people I have spoken to are willing to cede some of their anonymity to stay SAFE.

Infact it is a proven fact that most honest people would willingly do so. Women and men I have met in the course of running my foundation, especially those who have suffered irreparable harm in the hands of technology adroit criminals especially Pedophiles, stalkers and rapists who can use technology to track and murder innocents do not think the weight of anonymous surfing outweighs the need of law enforcement to identify, investigate and prosecute felons.

Anyone who has watched the “Predator” show hosted by Chris Hansen will find that all the contacts were made online.

This was just a TV show and so you can imagine the millions of children and other unreported cases in which the web is used anonymously to violate and sometimes even kill these children.

Adults are also violated, stalked and murdered by these same criminals for whom the Internet provides several levels of cover for them to commit their violent acts.
_________
4) “Anonymity is not evil. Indeed as other posters have pointed out anonymity is the bane of oppressive governments, cruel tyrants, and vindictive bosses. This is why protection from unreasonable search and seizure is written into the U.S. Constitution. it is also why the Constitution deals with such issues as quartering troops in peoples' homes. This is why the colonists who staged attacks on British tea chose to disguise themselves and why Benjamin Franklin published under a number of pseudonyms.
Do you really want a world where every boss, ex boyfriend, etc can track what you do online to you? Keep in mind that during the last election government employees were fired for accessing personal details from the candidates. What would stop any existing official from digging up dirt on their political enemies, as J. Edgar Hoover founder of the FBI did? Or any vindictive individual from tracking your friends?
Indeed the bottom line is that this won't work. Consider the "Great Firewall of China." Ultimately it is an expensive failure. It does not protect average citizens from online scams, predators, or basic verbal abuse. Nor does it even allow the authorities to block political opposition or undesirable information (their actual goal). Indeed online sentiment is still so negative that they have taken to paying people to say nice things online and to identify opposition (50 cent army). Nevertheless they spend an increasing amount of money on it each year to minimal gains.
Any such system would require a one world government to implement or Nigeria would make a mint doing anonymous work. The amount of money that would have to be spent would be excessive and ever increasing as new technology would develop. At best it would catch dumb criminals and stifle legitimate but unpopular views or allow those in power to stifle dissent. And the only real winners would the the company that develops it. It would have to be controlled by a single company or, as with the Nigeria case, it would likely fall apart. Even then it still would because that company would need to get hardware and software made somewhere and as a recent article in Businessweek showing that U.S. purchased weapons systems (jets I believe) were being sent to them with incorrect, but physically identical, chips indicates monitoring of all hardware and software is not an option.
At the end of the day the answer is locks. Rather than set up government cameras on every corner to see who might walk into our unlocked doors we install locks. And we educate ourselves individually about not using insecure operating systems or giving out personal details online. It is cheaper, not subject to government control, and ultimately more effective. Yes people still break and enter but as Britain has discovered, cameras do not prevent crime.
Mundie skipped over a number of other options along these lines. One could, for example, use a different operating system that does not have the history of bugs, holes, and virii that Windows is saddled with. These include MacOS, GNU/Linux, and BSD none of which is made by Microsoft. One could also install virus protection, which Microsoft does not, or a firewall, which Microsoft did not for years after the others have. “
_____________________________

My response:

I will respond very briefly to your lengthy paragraph above in a few lines. Anonymity is not bad but the fact is that INNOCENTS ONLINE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS.

Most people can be easily traced and tracked by their IP addresses. It is easy to pound a firewall and compel it to accept dangerous packets and thereby compromise the privacy of the owner.

Only the web adroit and yes, the criminals have mastered the act of using vehicles like “TOR” etc. and other layers of identity cover to surf the web.
The average person can be very easily located, tracked and followed online.

ANONYMITY for honest users of the web is largely non existent. I can find most people who read or comment on any site and I am no computer specialist.
You can therefore imagine what those whose sole livelihood or existence is based on their ability to rob, track, molest and violate using technology as their WEAPON OF CHOICE.

Hey, even here on “wordpress”, unless you are adroit at hiding your identity, you can easily be traced back to your home.

Your phone number and social security are easily obtained once your address and name are obtained. Most truly Internet savvy Network Security folks can get such information information in minutes.

So, the average user of the web even at this time has NO anonymity from criminals and other vagrants that use the web to commit vile heinous crimes including rape and murder. The regulation of the web through the creation of DYNAMIC LAWS which assist in tracking and exposing violent felons will help make the web a safer place for all users.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

What an interesting discourse.

My foundation keeps people online safe. We advocate for the safety and security of people and try and keep them away from technology hounds.

When I come back online I will be responding some more comments which I think are fallacious and misleading in every way.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security

I take issue with Mundies example.
Yes, in real life, there are "certain places" where I need identification.
I too, am comfortable with "certain places" in the internet, that need authentification.
However, if "the internet" needs authentification, I'd be as uncomfortable as in a worldd where I need to identify when opening my door and will be tracked continuously until I arrive back home. But that's what most current proposals amount to.