Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Internet

Do We Need a New Internet? 690

Posted by kdawson
from the alarmist-or-cassandra dept.
Richard.Tao and a number of other readers sent in a NYTimes piece by John Markoff asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced. "...[T]here is a growing belief among engineers and security experts that Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly elusive that the only way to fix the problem is to start over. What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there." A less alarmist reaction to the question was blogged by David Akin: "If you build a new Internet and you want me to get a license to drive on it, sorry. I'm hanging out here in v.1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do We Need a New Internet?

Comments Filter:
  • Absolutley Not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moniker127 (1290002) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:13PM (#26866323)
    And it isnt really an option either.
    • No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by p51d007 (656414) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:35PM (#26866515)
      THIS scares me more than anything... "create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety" Oh yeah right....leave "safety" in charge of some government idiots, or the UN...no thanks!
      • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:57PM (#26866745) Homepage Journal

        To quote my main man on the C-Note [wikipedia.org]: "They would trade essential liberty in return for a little temporary safety deserve neither." The B-man was talking about firearms, but it goes for the Intartubes as well.

        • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Simetrical (1047518) <Simetrical+sd@gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @10:33PM (#26868017) Homepage

          To quote my main man on the C-Note [wikipedia.org]: "They would trade essential liberty in return for a little temporary safety deserve neither." The B-man was talking about firearms, but it goes for the Intartubes as well.

          The correct quote is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." [google.com] The quote is in the context of Massachusetts resisting the amendment of its laws by Parliament, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with gun control.

      • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:21PM (#26866991) Homepage

        Actually, in my opinion the "gated community" metaphor fits perfectly: providing the illusion of security for a substantial sum without providing any actual benefit. It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.

        • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mad Merlin (837387) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:31PM (#26867083) Homepage

          It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.

          Sounds like the Americans will be all for it then.

        • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:36PM (#26867601)

          That's not entirely true though.

          We already have gated communities on the web. They're https sites.

          I would say a second secure webspace in which trusted commerce can take place in addition to the existing web wouldn't be a bad thing. I would be willing to completely give up my anonymity when wanting to make a secure transaction. In fact I would be willing to give up my anonymity on the normal internet, but like that I *could* be anonymous if ever needed.

          Hybridization seems like the key here.

        • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Informative)

          by EdIII (1114411) * on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:52PM (#26867715)

          Actually, in my opinion the "gated community" metaphor fits perfectly: providing the illusion of security for a substantial sum without providing any actual benefit. It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.

          It's hilarious that you mention that. One of my clients lives in a gated community where the average home price is 3 million dollars, even by today's standards. HOA fees are about as much as rents for some cheap apartments. Gates, armed guards, 24 hour security, and constant surveillance on the streets.

          Last night around 2am a group of people entered the community, broke into over a dozen cars on the streets, stole everything of value from them, AND stole three cars outright.

          Where was the security? At the gates eating pizza and watching TV. Where was the surveillance footage of the cars entering? Those systems have not worked in over a year and it was just a "visual" deterrent. Where was the license plate numbers and inspection of the drivers licenses required by policy? Not performed on entry, as the guards barely looked at them before letting them in. Can't even recall who came in around 2am or what they may have looked like.

          The illusion of safety here is not an opinion. It is a fact. All the hassle of having the guards and the costs of the HOA are apparently wasted in this community.

          Yes, I think this a PERFECT example of what would happen in Secure Internet 2.0 :)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dAzED1 (33635)

            thank you for a very excellent example of an anecdote.

            On the flip, I've experienced an increased security in gated communities. But obviously, ymmv.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by EdIII (1114411) *

              On the flip, I've experienced an increased security in gated communities. But obviously, ymmv.

              Are you really sure about that? Was it your perception or was it actual security?

              Security is really just a defensive state. It represents safety from the outside "world". A gated community can only have an increase in security if it actually provides additional barriers to damage or loss from outside individuals or actions.

              I have lived both inside and outside of gated communities. In the last couple of years I

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by MadAhab (40080)

                Soft, chewy interiors. Not much else to say about gated communities, except that they sound like incredibly sterile, boring places to live.

            • Re:No way in hell! (Score:4, Insightful)

              by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @11:44PM (#26868539)

              Others have explained why gated communities don't provide additional security. I believe they're correct. But even if gated communities were effective, they'd still be both wrong and worrisome: You can tell the degree of a society's progress or regression by examining the change in the number of gated communities.

              Gated communities are a sign of a diseased society with a siege mentality. In Europe, the manors that started appearing in Late Antiquity (i.e., after the Roman Empire was in irreversible decline) were that era's gated communities: by building walls and becoming economically self-contained, petty landlords became more secure against the bandits of the day. (Our word "vandal" actually comes from the name of a tribe that sacked Rome.) The empire was increasingly unable to guarantee security for all, and so fomented an insular mentality that would stop the clock of progress until the Italian Renaissance.

              Likewise, every gated community we build is a symbol of our giving up on collective security a bit. There's a reason you see gated communities in countries with high wealth disparities, like Mexico, Brazil, and the Middle Eastern nations: gated communities allow those inside to view the people outside as somewhat less than they are, which of course leads the inhabitants to adopt views and policies that further these views. In a way, are both the result and cause of policies that lead to further wealth inequality and eventually, complete societal collapse.

      • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kabloom (755503) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:47PM (#26867221) Homepage

        Well, tell me what kind of new internet we're talking about and then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. There's a lot that can be done without sacrificing anonymity and freedoms that would help make a more secure internet. One example might be to get sensitive transactions (like purchases or online banking) out of HTTP and out of your web browser, and into a more purpose-built protocol. This could eliminate important dangers like cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting. I await what other examples people can suggest.

      • Re:No way in hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zappepcs (820751) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:39PM (#26867625) Journal

        You are dead right. Gated community is FUD/PR Spin machine running full tilt. First, lets look at the reasons that some might argue that the current Internet is a dangerous place?

        Got those in your head? Don't forget social engineering as the number one threat to Internet security, and that it CANNOT be fixed with hardware other than removing the network cable from the back of user's computers.

        Now, let us look at how a gated community might fix security issues:

        -social engineering dangers? Nope
        -Spam? Nope
        -open WiFi APs at home? Nope
        -DDoS? Nope, those are not end user issues. If an end user can reach a given service, their pc can be taken by a bot and used in a DDoS.
        -Viruses? Nope, gated communities will not stop all, if any, attack vectors

        So, quite initially, the benefits here are nil, null, void, empty, vapor... So what is the impetus to make such gated communities? To remove your privacy. Period. there is no other reason. ever.

        How can the current Internet be made better? There are lots of ways. First large ISPs need to re-organize their networks to handle the traffic required of them. Decentralization is imperative to both remove DDoS dangers and to ensure that user's across town from you are not using the bandwidth that you would otherwise be using. Content on demand can not be served efficiently from a single data source. Current network designs are designed that way for financial reasons and not network functionality. If you think the current state of Internet infrastructure is fucked, you have only your large ISP's to blame. They did not, and ARE not planning for a network topology that will support safety or expected data throughput requirements.

        Those that have been fighting DDoS attacks can tell you more. Gated networks won't stop the real problems. They will ONLY take your privacy for the facade of security.

    • by Cally (10873)
      My old boss was prone to exclaiming: "Bring me a new choir-boy. This one's burst!" I wonder if that's what happened to the Interweb.
    • Why not? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:58PM (#26866759)

      Whenever I read this kind of stuff I really don't think any of these people get what an "internet" is... Once more with feeling the internet is not a network; it is a network of networks.

      Last time your home windows computer went down with a virus, my computer worked fine. Even with the incompetents we have in outsourced IT support, last time your corporate network collapsed under attack, mine didn't. The internet is the cess pool^W^W happy village square where we all meet together. Your own network is not the "internet" and you can run it any way you want; it won't influence the rest of the world. If you cut off the internet it by declaring "a gated community" as the article (you did read the article didn't you?) suggests, you are no longer part of the internet.

      Anyone trying to build a "new" internet should be encouraged at the same time as given a gentle education in basic network theory. If it's any good, then enough people will join it that when other particular bits of the internet collapse, they can still continue with their own useful lives. We need this kind of thing. If someone could build a network for their own country which could be relied on for emergency calls and at the same time let me read slashdot that would make a real difference (no BT's "all IP" network doesn't count). Definitely it would have to have some priority mechanism so that my slashdot couldn't get in the way of your emergency stuff; however, there's no way that such a new network can be successful if it can't cope with being connected to the current internet. That would just be security through obscurity and uselessness. Like claiming a computer is secure because it's had concrete poured into it.

      • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jonbryce (703250) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:03PM (#26866831) Homepage

        Last time your windows computer went down with a virus, I had to install a virus scanner for KMail, not because your viruses were in any way likely to infect my computer, but because there so many of the dammed things in my inbox that I needed something to filter them out so I could find my real mail amongst them.

        And your infected Windows computer is the reason why my uninfectable Linux computer gets bombarded with so many ads for fake pills etc.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          And your infected Windows computer is the reason why my uninfectable Linux computer gets bombarded with so many ads for fake pills etc.

          No, the reason you get those ads for fake pills is that someone with antisocial tendencies is sending them to you using hijacked systems.

          Let's not blame the wrong people for what is clearly a hostile act on the part of spammers and and the pimply losers who believe they've accomplished something because they've shit on our sidewalk. I'm referring to the botnet assholes, of

          • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Tweenk (1274968) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:26PM (#26867047)

            No, the reason you get those ads for fake pills is that someone with antisocial tendencies is sending them to you using hijacked systems.

            So you were robbed because a thief stole your stuff, and not because you left the door open?

            The blame goes both ways. Of course botnets wouldn't exist without malware authors, but neither would they without that many Windows and IE vulnerabilities.

            • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:15PM (#26867445) Journal

              Oh crap...here we go again with the Windows equals viruses BS. As someone who has been building and repairing and selling the things since the old days when folks had to install a third party Winsock just to get to Compuserve, please allow me to enlighten you. Are you ready?

              The problem is NOT Windows,okay? It is NOT Windows fault at all. You know why it isn't Windows fault? It is because there are a lot of STUPID people on Windows and as much as you hate Bill Gates I'm afraid he didn't actually invent stupid people. Yes, Windows takes at least a bit of common sense to lock down. Yes, running as Admin is not the smartest of ideas but as my many customers and myself who have done so for years without a SINGLE bug can tell you that is not the problem. Let me explain what it is that causes Windows to be a haven for malware. I have watched a user, with both me AND the AV telling them not to, open a password locked zip file and run "happy screensaver.scr.exe" and infect their machine because "this was from (insert BFF) and she wouldn't send me something bad." I have laughed with my corporate admin buddy who actually had to have a meeting with the head office because the PHB in middle management was threatening to fire him "Because you won't let my emails from Melissa [wikipedia.org] through and you have NO RIGHT to tell me who to talk to. I am your boss!"

              So scream about the evil Windows ALL you want. Say that it sucks, avoid it like that clap, whatever makes you happy. But you better pray to whatever deities you believe or don't believe in that the Windows users don't come to Linux or Mac OSX in mass. Because if they do the malware writers will be cranking out "Happy screensaver.scr.sh" and malware like the OSX Codec Trojan [slashdot.org] at a rate that will make your head spin and then we will be talking about "what a cesspool" Linux and OSX are. Because the problem is NOT the OS, it is strictly a PEBKAC issue and all the security in the world short of making everyone give up their PC for a government controlled thin client will simply not work. They will happily elevate privileges, they will happily input passwords, they will even happily shut down their Av and copy/paste commands if it means they get the Dancing Bunnies [codinghorror.com]. And sadly there is NOTHING that any OS can do if the user is willing to bypass the security to get to the bunny. Sorry, that's just the truth. That is why my business customers and I can run for nearly a decade as admins with no bugs. We keep the stupid people away from our computers. For those of you that can't, I'm sorry. Just take an aspirin and remember like Mr. Gump says "stupid is as stupid does."

              • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by hedwards (940851) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:38PM (#26867617)

                Actually, that would be MS's fault. Whenever you flatten the learning curve you make it more accessible with less effort. That sounds nice in premise, but the problem is that because people don't have to put in the effort to learn how to do things they lack the skills to keep up. Leaving a huge number of people that don't even know if they have anti-virus software installed and running. Moreover they don't appreciate the technical skills either.

                You saw what happened in Jurassic park. Same deal except fewer scientists and more calls for ass and shaved pussy.

                How many people do you run into that use a *NIX CLI and are that kind of incompetent? I'm guessing a number in the range of 0 to 1.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by EdIII (1114411) *

                Oh crap... here we go again with the Windows does not equals viruses BS. A someone who has been building and repairing and selling the tings since the old days when folks used cd-rom drives as coffee cup holders, please allow me to enlighten you. Are you ready?

                LOL. Just a little sarcasm there :)

                Seriously though, your argument basically boils down to the good ol' MarketShare Argument(tm). Windows has received the most attention from the malware developers simply because it is the largest market. I won't

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Arker (91948)

                As someone who was doing the same thing even before Winsock, I have to correct you.

                It's true there were viruses in the wild before Windows. You either got one by downloading warez, or by rebooting with an infected floppy disk in the drive.

                However the notion of getting a virus *simply by opening an email* was a ridiculous impossibility before MicroSoft made it reality with Outhouse. I used to get 5 or 6 inquiries about this a week - chain letters went from one clueless user to the next quite regularly - but

          • by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @09:46PM (#26867671) Journal
            The reason why you are bombarded with spam is because IDIOTS BUY IT. If they did not buy from spam, then spam would stop within a month. And the reasons why virus are sent on Windows is because it is an easy system to crack. Once it is no longer dead last on the security trail, then the spam writers will target the easier system. Put the blame where it belongs; BOTH the fools that buy the spammed products and use bad OSs as well as those that send the spam and the virus.
    • by yog (19073) * on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:09PM (#26866889) Homepage Journal

      I think the AOL system was pretty much what the op is suggesting--a gated, fee-driven system that is safe for the kids and spam-free.

      The problem is that systems like AOL are inherently limited, with a corporate team that decides its content and direction from week to week.

      The Internet is amazingly varied and dynamic by comparison and it's little wonder that AOLers eventually left to join the greater outside world.

      Comparing a Net 2.0 to a gated community is an intriguing concept, but in reality it would probably be too self-limiting for people.

      It's possible today to stay in your own backyard on the wild and woolly Net 1.0. Just don't publish your email address, or else change it whenever you start getting junk mail. A lot of unsophisticated users just use the email assigned to them by their broadband vendors anyway, xxxx@verizon.net for example, and whenever they move or switch services their addresses change, too.

      Also, just stick to a few trusted web sites, don't browse promiscuously, and you'll be fine. But life will be boring.

    • by Gerzel (240421) * <brollyferret@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:10PM (#26866897) Journal

      It is! And it is needed.

      The current Internet is too hard to control. Just about anyone can get on and say anything. There is no class structure, no censorship, options for extracting money from users are limited and getting a cohesive message across to everyone who uses it is downright impossible.

      What is needed is a tightly regulated Internet where only those with enough good wealth are able to control what is being said and payment is extracted in an easy and orderly fasion. One which all information is available to the right people who can use it to control the unruly mob and masses of the underclasses.

      In the past couple centuries the ruling elites have been lax in their duties and the lower classes have risen, creating a "middle class" and fostering the wrongheaded idea that every man is equal. With a new Internet combined with other mass media such wrong ideas can be properly quashed.

      It will also catch some pedophiles so it is for the children and anyone who doesn't want it to be this way is obviously a perverted child molester and unpatriotic coward.

    • by slyn (1111419)

      A new internet? But I haven't even beaten the old one yet!

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:14PM (#26866329) Journal
    give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

    They don't deserve (and won't get) either.

    • by El Torico (732160) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:29PM (#26866471)
      Agreed; there's isn't any "gated community" that can't be broken into. It's whether or not the cost/reward decision favors making the effort.

      The article is alarmist, here are some quotes,
      "Unless we're willing to rethink today's Internet," says Nick McKeown, a Stanford engineer involved in building a new Internet, "we're just waiting for a series of public catastrophes."
      "If you're looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon," Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm, said recently.

      We are going to get a new Internet, but incrementally. It will continue to be developed, which is what the Standford (and other) researchers are doing.
      • by Elektroschock (659467) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:38PM (#26866541)

        Well, the internet is designed to avoid political intervention. So the logical next step is to further decentralise the net and promote wireless mesh networks.

        And the worst argument of it all:

        "Known as Conficker, it quickly infected more than 12 million computers, ravaging everything from the computer system at a surgical ward in England to the computer networks of the French military."

        So lets abandon the free net because of Microsoft's security holes. Great idea.

        In my opinion the French military should rather develop its own national operating system.

  • Harden up (Score:5, Informative)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:15PM (#26866339) Homepage Journal

    Fucking cry babies who literally want to trade liberty for security.

    • Re:Harden up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:51PM (#26866677) Homepage

      No that is just plain wrong, don't support their lie in any way. They absolutely don't want to trade liberty for security, they want to trade 'your' liberty for 'their' control over you. Control over what you read or see, write or say, in any digital format. They have found that as a result of the internet, our voice is louder than theirs, that the majority view point now creates itself and dominates the minority view point that dominated mass media.

      Want a more secure internet, simple step one no more plain modems, all modems should incorporate a hardware fire wall based upon open source software, open source so that the public can see what is going on. Step two, simply use more secure software, that tightens up on internet access and that is a simple as using a better operating system, again open source is forced as the public has a right to know what is going on in a very integral part of their digital lives, what is basically becoming an essential service, no more secrets and no more lies.

      • Re:Harden up (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdot@ga[ ]lson.org ['ryo' in gap]> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:17PM (#26866953) Journal

        ...as a result of the internet, our voice is louder than theirs, that the majority view point now creates itself and dominates the minority view point that dominated mass media...

        The old power base is attempting to leash and control the new power base to their own ends. The young, creative talent has moved to the Internet; and the previous powerbase is populated with a docile, unproductive herd. And not realizing any functional leash on the Internet populace will again capture only the docile followers.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gad_zuki! (70830)

          Young creative talent? Yeah maybe in 1996 or so, but today the internet is just another avenue for established business. It might make you feel self-important that the "man" is after you but in reality there's no such thing going on. Also, please turn down your Rage Against the Machine. I can barely hear you.

  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:15PM (#26866341)
    A World without Anonymous Cowards? I thought I'd never see the day!
  • and in fact, once again, anonymity in communication enjoys particular protection by the United States Constitution.

    If "they" came up with a security model that required giving up privacy, then "we" would just come up with another that did not. There is no technical reason that privacy cannot be maintained... if anything, better than it is now.
  • Users (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evil_aar0n (1001515) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:17PM (#26866361)

    Build all the "new" Internets you want. As long as you have clueless users on your network, you'll have attack vectors.

  • Oh hey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kjzk (1097265) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:18PM (#26866363)
    The internet is unfortunately the truest form of Freedom of Speech we have available. We can't even protest in public without fear of arrest or being harmed by police. There are a lot of people with money and power would like to stop the flow of information in its tracks.
  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:19PM (#26866375)

    Do we need a new internet? Yes, absolutely. My wife informs me that "the internet is down" probably two or three times a week on average.

  • by bcrowell (177657) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:19PM (#26866381) Homepage

    To the Editor:

    Re "A New Internet? The Old One is Putting Us in Jeopardy," by John Markoff (Week in Review, Feb. 15, 2009):

    Mr. Markoff both misstates and overstates the security problems faced by the Internet as currently designed.

    He never uses the word "Windows," but the virus outbreaks he describes are almost entirely a Windows phenomenon, and due to the poor design of that operating system. Microsoft's apologists have been saying for years that this was only because Windows' market share made it the more attractive target. But Apple's share of the desktop market has skyrocketed recently to 15% without any outbreaks of viruses targeting the Macintosh. And Microsoft has never commanded more than about half of the server market; the other half runs open-source operating systems such as Linux (used by Google) and FreeBSD (Yahoo), on which viruses are essentially unknown.

    Markoff says it's hard to prove your identity on the internet, and proposes government regulation as a solution. But many people have been proving their identities for years now using proven technologies like public-key cryptography. The U.S. government played a negative role in the development of these technologies by attempting to regulate their distribution through export-control regulations originally intended for munitions.

  • NO. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:20PM (#26866385) Homepage Journal

    the success of internet is based on its freedom and anonymity.

  • Absolutely! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I, Mr. Anonymous Coward, hereby give up my anonymity. Now excuse me while I browse fake porn/warez malware sites with unpatched IE6 - after all, I am now safe!

  • by tmbg37 (694325) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:24PM (#26866427) Homepage
    A "gated community" with fewer abilities for users? Why not call it "Access Owned by Large corporations" or AOL for short?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbcad7 (771464)

      Turning on the wayback machine.. Before they became ISP's for the real internet.. AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were private networks with their own content, and controls. Obviously they couldn't provide what the internet now does.

      To address the issue of a new internet.. As long as the old one stays, why not ? .. just as there are different morals and cultures all over the planet .. example Utah.. Why not make a separate net where people from Utah could be happy ? .. In fact I think Utah would be the place t

  • ...the long and slippery slope.

    From the summary : "users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety".

    *gets out clue by four* NO NO NO NO NO! *WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM*

    Quote : "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    Listen...

    Even if at first this New Improved Internet worked the way these fools said it should, you can have a pretty sure bet that,
    human nature being human nature, a lot of the so-called "bad
  • Short Answer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ajayrockrock (110281) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:25PM (#26866435) Homepage

    No.

  • by Distan (122159) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:27PM (#26866461)

    > ...asking whether the Internet is so broken it needs to be replaced.

    Yeah, I agree. Anonymity on the internet is completely broken. It is trivial for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force websites to reveal the IP addresses of users, and also trival for law enforcement to get a subpoena to force ISPs to reveal who had that IP address at a given moment in time. Granted, there are ways to make sure that the IP address you are using can't be traced to you, but those methods are kind of a pain in the ass.

    > ...where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

    WTF? Any rearchitecting of the internet needs to have subpoena-proof absolute anonymity built in from the beginning. This "proposal" is like suggesting we rearchitect transportation to make sure that vehicle occupants receive no shelter from the weather.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I propose the new internet be named the patriot net.

  • by The Cisco Kid (31490) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:30PM (#26866483)

    You cant "go" there.

    The Internet is a communications network. I happens to be a "the world's" communications network, more or less.

    Just like in the real world, you are (mostly) anonymous as long as you chose. Just like in the world you can choose what information you want to send, and what information you want to request (Notwithstanding the tendency of certain mainstream operating systems to make some of those choices for you)

    Just like in the world, there are certain networks which are connected to the Internet in a restricted way (compare to 'gated communities'). To communicate with them, you may need some form of credential (password, public key, etc).

    The Internet as it exists today is an entirely different network than it was even just 10 years ago. Its continuously being 'rebuilt'.

    Also, there are many 'private' networks that are built on top of the Internet as it currently stands.

    Basically, this is never going to happen, and yet is already is happening, it's just hard to see for the average clueless moron.

  • It's been done (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wordsnyc (956034) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:31PM (#26866487) Homepage

    It was called AOL, and it didn't work. It became, in fact, what Congressional investigators called "a magnet for pedophiles."

    This isn't about safety. It's about control. Control of piracy, control of political agitation, and control of the truth. For all its faults, the net has created a populace that at least has the opportunity to be far better informed about the real world than our parents' generation.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:35PM (#26866521) Homepage

    In places where the best of the haves hide behind gated communities, you know what happens? That's where the really enterprising criminals go. All of that faux security hasn't done a damn thing in countries like Mexico for the richest, who still have to worry about things like their kids getting kidnapped. The military still faces attacks on its secure networks. The fact is, no one and no institution is an island. If you don't participating in purging the world of ne'erdowellers and their ilk, you are just deluding yourself into thinking that your investment into your own safety is helping to get rid of the problem. That's why I advise friends and family to invest in a dog or two and a gun for defending their home, not a security system that can usually be defeated by a serious criminal.

  • Cookies! (Score:3, Funny)

    by indre1 (1422435) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:38PM (#26866537)
    Look at the bright side - no more tracking cookies needed if you surf from: firstname.lastname.age.sex.city.phone.address.com
  • I do think we need a new internet, in that we can then properly use the plural form of internet i.e. as in "give me back my internets you bastard"

    Of course no-one will use the new internet due to lack of porn and free warezes and advertisements. Part of the appeal and success of the original internet is largely due to lack of accountability, and the ability to share ones own sick fetishes with the world completely anonymously.

    Not to mention the target your painting on your forehead.
    I mean seriously if
  • Windows, not the internet created the legions of Spammers, botnets and virii. In the Unix world, we closed the SMTP relays. Yet the Windows bots still swarm. Now. I am not saying that in the Unix world, we would be completely free of security vulnerabilities. There would still be hackers and spammers. But they would no6t be as widespread a problem. The proliferation of Spam has been directly attributed to the rise off Windows bots. Get rid of Windows, you get rid of the problem.

    The other problem is the DMCA

  • Totalitarian states (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MiKM (752717) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:42PM (#26866569)
    No anonymity on the Internet? China, North Korea, and other totalitarian states would love this.
  • Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daimanta (1140543) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:49PM (#26866647) Journal

    If we cant make the comparitively tiny step of moving from ipv4 to ipv6 I think its nigh impossible to move to "a new internet".

  • by voss (52565) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:51PM (#26866681)

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin 1775.

    If I have a choice between the people who gave us Echelon, Gitmo, Abu Grahib, DCMA, COPA, and failed to stop 9/11 versus virsuses and spyware...Ill take the viruses and spyware. I can protect myself from viruses and spyware much easier than I can protect myself from encroachment upon my liberty.

  • ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @07:52PM (#26866693)

    This is simply a horrendous idea that certainly has no place. It is basically seems to be a ploy of those who long for a tolitarian police state to get their way. This is a very tpical pattern that we see with shutting down an open society and create a police state, create fear and some horrendous problem, creating a reaction and then you can get people to demand a solution, offer them your solution which is taking away their freedom. You can basically get people to beg you to enslave them. The reason they want to do this is to gain greater control and mastery over the people and keep them from exercising control over their lives and government. They want to be able to monitor what everyone says and does, so they can then punish those who are saying things which run contrary to their agenda or who are advocating for democratic change. To stay in power indefinitely a tolitarian state needs to supress all dissent. Getting rid of privacy is the first step on the road to totalitarianism since to supress dissent they need to know who has what opinions and views so they can attack and punish them. They want to supress views and opinions as well, and want to manipulate and control information to psychologically manipulate the population by with-holding information and providing propoganda which manipulates people to support whatever objective they wish or behave in the way they please. Yo can bet that the desire to prohibit for instance pornography as a psychological and social engineering purpose, for instance.

    The internet is just fine the way it is. No censorship should be allowed and anonymity should be a basic right. Only with such rights can free speech exist. There can be no free speech without anonymity since they can suppress and attack those who hold opinions they do not like.

    Sure with how things are now there are spam messages in my mail box but I would rather have that and choose to opt in for a filter in my own software, than to have some mass surviellance scheme. I also think that government and the big brother nanny state poses far greater risk to our children coming from the tolitarian terror state that emerges from this than anything they will see on the internet. Those who give up their liberty for so called safety will be creating out of the government a much worse menace than anything it was supposed to protect them against.

    The main thing that needs to be addressed with the internet has nothing to do with increasing surviellance or reducing privacy. There needs to be more use of SSL and there needs to be secure encrypted BGP and DNS to make sure that routing tables cannot be hacked.

    It makes me quite angry that after we have fought so hard as a country to secure our liberties from a tolitarian oppressive government prying into our lives and deciding what we should look at, that we have people who are actively trying to undo these hard won liberties and turn the country into a totalitarian nightmare where people live in fear of an oppressive and tyrannical government, like china.

    "Those who give up essential liberty for safety will deserve and shall get neither" -Benjamin Franklin

  • by Zerth (26112) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:04PM (#26866841)

    What we really need is a return to bang-path routing. Everything after there was just downhill. Hard to use for newbies and not terribly hard for anyone with a clue.

    And if the net was slow, you might actually be able to do something about it, not just hope your upstream got a freaking clue.

  • nonsense (Score:5, Funny)

    by doti (966971) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:04PM (#26866847) Homepage

    give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety

    so I'll be safer by exposing myself?

  • Of course we do. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:05PM (#26866865) Journal
    Of course we do need a "new" internet.

    The new bourgeois world order demands it.

    There is nothing more subversive and abhorrent to the owning/ruling classes than this peer-to-peer network, on which nobody can know you're a dog.

    That the smallest pipsqueak running Apache can pass for the largest media conglomerate, oh! the humanity!

    What is needs is a strict pay-as-you-go, one way network that will feed what the big media conglomerate want to the masses, in which nothing negative (to the owning classes) can travel. A virtual Disneyland(TM) where everything (appears) nice so that the masses can be fond of the status-quo.

  • Fine! (Score:4, Funny)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld.gmail@com> on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:10PM (#26866905) Homepage
    I'll build my OWN internet...with blackjack...and hookers. In fact forget the internet and blackjack part.
  • It isn't broken (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr (15451) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @08:23PM (#26867015) Homepage

    The Internet itself isn't broken, not by a long shot. What's broken are certain applications that run across it.

    And even then whether they're broken is arguable. Take SMTP for instance. One of the big complaints seems to be that SMTP doesn't make any guarantees that the sender is who they claim to be. My response to that is "And?". The USPS doesn't make any such guarantee about physical mail either, and we get along just fine anyway. It's just acknowledged that the identity of the sender isn't determined by the return address they put on the envelope, but by the claims in the letter inside and even those claims have to be verified independently of the Post Office. And when people are naive enough to believe any important letter just because it claims to be from someone without actually contacting that someone to verify it, we laugh at them. So when people say "I got an e-mail claiming to be from Bank of America and it was fake!", why don't we laugh at them and go "Well, YES! When the e-mail said there was a problem, why didn't you call BoA directly and ask about it?".

    Same for Web browsers and web sites, and dozens of other applications. People want the transport layer to substitute for their own judgement and common sense. The Internet doesn't do that, any more than UPS or the USPS do. We don't need a replacement for them, do we?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by boarder8925 (714555)

      The Internet doesn't do that, any more than UPS or the USPS do. We don't need a replacement for them, do we?

      Actually, we do. I think it's something called the internet. I'm not so sure about it, but so far people have been saying great things. . . .

  • by Casandro (751346) on Sunday February 15, 2009 @10:10PM (#26867845)

    Actually most of the problems on the internet come from to much controll, not to little controll. The 2 big problems are net neutrality and privacy. Both are in danger because companies are able to record information like your IP-Address.

    So if you want to make a new Internet, get rid of source IP-Addresses. Make the router aware of connections.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...