Curse

Enchanted Warrior · Apr 14, 2007, 05:05 PM // 17:05

"NEW YORK - Although it has already taken nearly four decades to get this far in building the Internet, some university researchers with the federal government's blessing want to scrap all that and start over."

Complete article

Could be interesting to say the least. And before the tinfoil hat brigade starts discussing which building is high enough to hurl themselves off of, I'm sure this would go in stages (if it ever happened) and would NOT mean the net would stop and wait while they develop the net 2.0.

In my humble opinion, it's needed.. The net as is, will eventually go boom, and die. Ask any programmer, eventually there is a need for a complete rewrite. (case in point, Windows 1.0 fit on 1, 360k 5 1/4 floppy.

)

Hmmmm no more spam? Oh man sign me up!

Thought for the day: Can you write a program that will run on machines that do not exist yet?

mikkel · Apr 14, 2007, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Worst idea ever with the current climate.

Everyone who possibly can will try to push their agenda and affect the development, and the ones who have the money and power to do so are often the ones with the scariest ideas. Imagine DRM'd *networking*. SIM-lock style hardware locks on networking equipment. Vendor specific protocol stacks. It's really not something you want to even start contemplating.

The Internet Protocol is from a time when the greedy, the criminal and the immoral people and corporations hadn't woken up to global communications beyond phone lines, and it shows. No new global networking standard would be as free and permissive as the Internet Protocol is, and letting everyone with an agenda have their go at trying to control how we communicate in the name of fighting a threat that has time and time again proven itself to overcome any technical hurdles the best and brightest have thrown at it is not only completely and historically stupid, but very, very dangerous.

This might have worked in a less corrupt world, but when basic civil liberties are being revoked and abused in the name of fighting phantom foes, do you really want ICANN, DARPA and the government behind these organisations to rewrite what is essentially the "constitution" of the Internet? I sure don't.

Onarik Amrak · Apr 14, 2007, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Sounds like a good idea. Sometimes things need a complete overhaul rather than just expanding or fixing what you already have.

eg. GW2

Enchanted Warrior · Apr 14, 2007, 05:36 PM // 17:36

mikkel, True, and exactly why it could happen. When corporate entities, started realizing the loss of revenues and missed opportunites that exist today, they no doubt increased their dosages of anti-deperesants and started demanding a do-over. Like the idea that goes around in spam touting that ATT will charge LD fees for cross country, as well as global connections. Don't kid yourselves if they ever get the chance to do it, they will in a hot new york minute. Only thing stopping them is the technology to monitor it. Hence (IMHO) the idea of starting over ..

mikkel · Apr 14, 2007, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Completely rewriting the Internet Protocol serves absolutely no purpose.

Yes, you could make it a little harder for spammers to get their junk through, but time has shown that it's only a matter of time (usually days) before new methods are circumvented.

History has proven that *any* system can be exploited. The Internet is no exception, and thinking that a new protocol would remain largely impervious to attacks for any length of time is something that most any IT security professional would kick you in the shin for. There is no easy solution or quick blanket fix to spam. As long as there is a will, there is a way.

There is also nothing in the current Internet Protocol that warrants a re-do on a technical basis. The Internet Protocol is an addressing protocol. Nothing more. The underlying transmission protocols and media are being continually updated independently of the Internet Protocol, and they can continue to do so indefinitely. That's the beauty of networking. The Internet Protocol doesn't care which physical transmission protocols it's running on, as long as it gets from A to B.

All that anyone could hope to achieve from rewriting the Internet Protocol is a temporary quick-and-dirty fix to a much more serious problem that needs to be attacked at the source. A pointless and incomprehensively expensive endeavour like that could only end up costing everyone a lot of money, and in a best-case scenario, change very little about the Internet.

Malice Black · Apr 14, 2007, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Much tougher 'policing' of the Internet is needed.

Government's must be tougher on sites which have no purpose existing (we all know which one's). All governments need to start communicating to clear such sites from the Internet. As it stands certain sites can be easily maintained from countries which have little or no policing of sites created within their borders.

mikkel · Apr 14, 2007, 08:02 PM // 20:02

Much less policing on the Internet is needed.

Using a power to arbitrarily decide which sites should be allowed on the Internet is called censorship. If you want censorship, go somewhere else.

The Internet is a free zone. If criminal activity occurs, it's up to law enforcement and the courts to set things right. Any government can dictate what parts of the Internet should be accessible to their citizens, but the Internet itself, a system built for the sole purpose of making information accessible, should never change to facilitate censorship. If you want to live in a police state - fine. You'd probably be happier in China, Turkey, Vietnam or North Korea. Just don't drag the rest of us down with you.

Malice Black · Apr 14, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

I disagree, as someone that deals with the Internet on a daily basis (for the purposes of work not play) I would much prefer a heavily policed Internet, my cards would be safer, my business information would be safer and the Internet would be a safer place for the general public as a whole.

Yes, people who use the Internet for 'illegal' purposes (D/L music, films, kiddie hackers etc) and those that use if for severe criminal activity (child porn, extremist websites, black market sites, real hackers) would loose out, but who cares? not I.

I don't want total censorship but there is a clear need for more policing.

mikkel · Apr 14, 2007, 08:58 PM // 20:58

As someone who works as a network engineer for an ISP, I can assure you that absolutely none of your business information would be safer than it is today, regardless of how they'd re-write the Internet Protocol.

Those who use the Internet for the illegal acts you describe are already being dealt with by law, and no addressing protocol is going to make it any easier to deal with them. Addressing is addresssing. You aren't going to catch house invaders easier by changing the name of the street or the numbers on the house.

Changing the Internet Protocol would do nothing but increase the opportunity for content providers, ISPs, governments and anyone with a sinister motive to mess with your data. Claiming that their motives are to fight spam and whatnot is nothing but an empty cover to give people who don't know a false sense of security.

Divinitys Creature · Apr 14, 2007, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Crackheads------

Enchanted Warrior · Apr 14, 2007, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

I don't want total censorship but there is a clear need for more policing.

/Agree
/Salute

Swampgirl Inez · Apr 17, 2007, 07:33 PM // 19:33

This is becoming a political arguement and subject to flames.

Closed.