Secure Cyberspace

[name_less_one]

Some fifteen years ago internet was a bizzare novelty, gimicky and undefined. Today it is a complex machine, absolutely essential for modern world to operate. Millions of people send extremely sensitive personal information online daily, and I mean the kind of information that is usually stored in armored vaults

Comments

я очень люблю эту тему :)

[gimli_m]

Colonization, dear Sir.

This is all because Internet is, for most purposes, a new planet. Where, due to local conditions and resources, transportation and temporary life support are cheap, import-export is booming, but tools for anything resembling permanent settlement are not available. You cannot pretend that a virtual estate is an estate: walls melt in the rain.

In the absence of familiar tools, colonists cannot maintain familiar economic systems, and quickly revert to the lowest common denominator - hunters and gatherers society. Without respect for property or boundaries, because such things are only applicable to a society with poverty or enemies.

Hunters and gatherers happily hunt and gather, and quickly go completely native. However, some of the colonists remembers that they are, at home world, members of an industrial society. They attempt to establish some form of colonial state. Complete with missionaries, fountains of youth quests, gold rushes and cotton plantations.

Hilarity ensues. There is no meaningful way to explain to a tribal hunter that this construction is a fence, and that group of cows is a village herd. For him, this is an idle waste of wood, and that is a dinner. In conflict, both sides develop sophisticated traps, that, conveniently, do absolutely nothing in the long run, because you cannot booby-trap a rain-forest.

To keep it short: this is a cultural conflict inherent to economical situation. Values of anything higher than hunter-gatherer society do not apply. Before government-based permanent settlements are established, before wild tribes are offered gifts and treaties, social contract higher than tribal lore is not applicable. On government level, they might as well regulate wind patterns on Mars.

Incidentally, I belong to a nice tribe. We have cookies.

Re: я очень люблю эту тему :)

[name_less_one]

Aw, come on. Unlike the situation you described, internet actually HAS physical representation in out world - a network of cables - and that physical representation is tied to a geopolitical map of our world. Just cut all frikkin international traffic and start making exceptions for trusted websites - same way it's done with visas.

[gimli_m]

No. That is like saying that a book has a physical representation in our world - a stack of pages - and the group of readers it is primarily written for is tied to a geopolitical map of the world. Therefore there should be a US-British international regulation about what Jane Eyre said to Edward Rochester on p. 325.

Seriously, any attempt to regulate without attempts to civilize first would fail. There are so many ways to rout around any barrier: long-distance phone lines, satellite television, temporary wireless routes scotch-taped to tree branches, if it comes to that (see Cory Doctorow and his expansion on the topic).

[name_less_one]

Books aren't used to transfer billions of dollars of funds on a daily basis. And by the way, many books are banned in some countries and an attempt to smuggle one can be punished. Try bringing some kind of "Make explosives at home" guide to US, for example.
And yes, there are ways to bypass traffic barriers. There are also ways to bypass border security, but it hardly makes it useless.

[gimli_m]

It is a question of scale, then. There is a difference between "illegal to copy or modify" and "illegal, but extremely easy to copy or modify".

Note that I am not primarily saying that attempts to regulate are useless. I am saying that attempts to civilize should come first.

For such borders as US-Canada, the fence and guards are secondary. The primary thing is a convenient protocol, i.e. the body of laws and practices due to which _vast majority of people does not have the motivation to bypass security_. The protocol is a result of compromise with their needs.

On the other hand, for such borders as US-Mexico, the majority has the motivation to violate the rules. That is because the compromise with their wishes has not reached. Result: southern border is crossed illegally all the time.

[name_less_one]

The internet is pretty much global. While it is a very nice thought, to civilize the entire globe, this process can take centuries. Perhaps in some bright future this goal will be reached. Meanwhile we have to rely on barbed wire and guys with guns to offset the motivation.
I mean, even with illegal immigration, there are still enough systems in place to prevent undesirable immigrants from causing too much damage to the existing communities.
This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of online security. You don't need to be a gunslinger and martial arts expert to feel reasonably safe on streets. Neither should you have to be an IT expert to feel safe online. Security of it's citizen, whether real or virtual, has to be in the hands of the state.

[gimli_m]

I agree with most of your statements: "someone" must ensure our safety. That is, some form of social contract should hire an enforcement agency; and simultaneously make sure that the enforcement is reasonable and for everyone's benefit.

But: there is no contract right now that I can completely agree to. I don't condone crimes, but forms of crime prevention suggested so far are inefficient, and selfish. Once the compromise between users' ability to harm each other and users' motivation of harm each other will be reached, the civilization process can take less than 1 year.

Re: я очень люблю эту тему :)

[ingwall]

Delete your cookies!

[gimli_m]

... hide your applets (and cotlets)!

[ingwall]

Pour the milk on the pantry floor!
Leave the bones on the bedroom mat!
Splash the wine on every door!

[gimli_m]

Пoтoму-что-punk-not-dead!