the internet speeks its first sentence

in the history of the internet security was always a lag factor in developing an equal and fault tolerent medium of exchange for data.

you see at the begining expansion of the harware infrastruture, was much more of a priority than say security plans in the long term,
i think this was due to moores law.

moores law states that the available computational power for consumers should double in a set period of time, and another law shows as
new methods in telecomunications that enhance throughput and connection rates,

with higher rates of throghput of data, security has been left behind.

why?

the original intent of the designers was that the net be free, but in a comercial world the advertisers steeped in to allow for income
to many of the small websights this was what allowed them to pay the bills and supply content and boards like ATS

this gave the advertisers huge control over the content on the web, and forced a number through the door model (or clicks per cent)
incentive, this is the insentive to trace you, supposedly to make it easy to sell you stuff.

the advertising motive has turned into the medium for servalence by third party actors.
to reinforce this courts have ruled that on the net you can expect NO privacy against third parties.

when the tracking motive changed,

S.O.P.A and P.I.P.A and those pushing this legislation (for profit passage of corperate driven legislation)
and their plan to troll the entire internet as a third party and collect vast sums of data for use in future trolling of IPs when
ISPs are forced to release the information of "SUSPECTED" infinging parties.

for the record agencies to further troll for information on what file what time ect.

why sell a CD for 20 dollars when you can "settle" for a $2000.00 fee?

in the words of a song you might know the internet is not a big truck,
its a series of tubes

if you think of the anology of snail mail,
(post office) for the young

a recording industry could not open your postal letters incase you infinge them, as it would be in breach of your privacy.

but to them this is fine in the webz?

WTF

and to intentionally try to confuse the legal mening of copyrite and couterfitting crimes.

they want to make you a suspect and a defendant for a trolling exercise that will desomate the net,
and fill prisons.

A.C.T.A was an attempt on the life of the net, freedom
it was an attempt to turn average users into criminals for serious crimes like couterfeiting for a simple civil copywrite offence.

this behaviour is unexcusable and the contempt of the compromised legislators is on display to the world.

in a way the net said NO very loudly to the crazy self serving laws that harm all in a society to allow for trolling for the benifit of a vary small group.

in a way we prooved that we as a comunity understand the issiues and our powerful responce in one voice,
stopped millions from being the victims of an attempt to kill the net by harmful legislation, for hollywoods owners.

the internet has just said its first sentence,
the time has come for THE INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

and now that we have the computational power,
we sould have security and privacy

c + v
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


The internet can be used to do any one of many nasty things to others. Dont you think things like that deserve to be policed every bit as much as the roads and highways of our towns?

If the world was filled with more deserving respectfull people i think we coud do away with alot of the overhead in funding society.

reply to post by Wertdagf


i respect the right for law enforcement to do their job,
i do not expect that ability to be sold of to copyrite trolls who push laws to make a simple civil copywrite cases into international couterfeit claims to be exradited.

i dont condone copyright infindgement, but filling prison with common people,
and setting up harware infrastruture to spy on ALL people breaches civil rights

you may not infindge my privacy INCASE i may be a infindger,

while their is a need for legal servaylence,
it should only be used for law enforcemment, not trolling data for hollywood.

the law enforcement is not vocal in pointing out this makes us all into suspects to be monitered,

private comunication should be protected by a court order.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


The internet isnt very old. All telecommunications technology is still in its infancy compared to other things such as the "wheel".

I thinks it not such a wise idea to label such things as rights... that a baby is born deserving of a private email account and cellphone.

reply to post by XPLodER


This is difficult for me to formulate, but has been on my mind for a long time:

My cell phone works via radio waves (Thank you, Nicola). The draw back for that is that my conversations, texts and web surfing can be monitored by law enforcement without any writ. It may not be admissible in court, but could set an investigation in a direction to follow whatever evidenciary trail that is created.

Now, let's apply this to the Internet: wireless!!! Radio Waves!!! (Thank You, Nicola)

Copyrighted material, okay, fine, I'll pay MC Yo-Yo PACalicious for the next album.
Child/Snuff/Abuse/etc, okay, fine, but the the executions up for us to see.

As a human with intellect and curiosity what right do you have to tell me what I can and can't look at over Nicola's Magical Gift? Bring it. What? You telling me it's hack-proof? Ha!

Don't waste the money, folks, it'll be demolished in six months.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by XPLodER

 

The internet isnt very old. All telecommunications technology is still in its infancy compared to other things such as the "wheel".

the anonolgy is wasted on me ???????

I thinks it not such a wise idea to label such things as rights... that a baby is born deserving of a private email account and cellphone.

ok i see your point rights is the wrong word,

but can you see mine?

equivalence of laws, means that to open a letter is an offence, but opening packets is not?
and its ok for third parties to do this?

a corporation can encrypt its data to protect itself but a person maynot?
because they MIGHT BE an infringer?

national security and law enforcement aside (we agree as net users to these reasons for "society")

but when a copywrite troll trys to use the state to enforce civil laws as if they were international; high crimes of counterfeit, and pervert the reason we as a society allow law enforcement, or even trust it.

this is the cause of the going dark problem,
people WANT their communications as private,
BECAUSE of the copywrite barons, the people will not trust the net as being free from persecution.

i ask where does law enforcement think?

xploder

The internet isnt very old. All telecommunications technology is still in its infancy compared to other things such as the "wheel".

Engineers talk about the Internet in terms of OSI layers, so it depends on which layer of the Internet you're referring to. If it's the physical infrastructure, it's as old as the telephone system. In terms of Layer 2 network interfaces, it's around 45 years old, or 35 years if you're referring to packet switching and Transmission Control Protocol. The Web, on the other hand, has only been around since the early 1990s.

To answer the OP's question of why security isn't intrinsic to the Internet - it simply wasn't designed for security. The Internet was only created to carry data, and various security measures have been tacked on over the years. The good news is the transition to IPv6 has already begun, and IPSec, which provides confidentiality, integrity and authentication, is a native feature of the new protocol.

As far as an Internet 'Bill of Rights' is concerned, we don't need one. I've come to the conclusion that the only real safeguards are technical, and the Internet will adapt to whatever threatens our security and privacy anyway.

Internet campaigners will find these issues have been given a lot of thought by experts, and they're challenges engineers and the security industry have been trying very hard to solve.

reply to post by XeroOne


an anology is in real life i cannot follow you around a mall and watch you put your pin into an atm and at a swipe card machine and record what cloths at what size and what food you ate at the food court ect

but online you can,
i dont care if law enforcement is watching me, but if you followed me around, its wrong

while in public i expect my actions to be public but my comunications while in public to be PRIVATE

i dont shout to the whole mall my pin number for example.

poliece in the mall are there to keep order,

not watch over my sholder and shout my pin to the whole mall.

the cops ok but the shouting out of pin to third parties is not.

with the ability and processing power we have today,
we can reuse the existing infrastruture, with a new layer "encryption"

we clearly have the computational power to provide security,
and with advances in isp design and function,

why are we thinking tack on patches? to existing security?

xploder

A couple of months ago, Divine Wisdom told me she is working on waking the internet up.

correction to the op,

Today, EFF joins a broad, international coalition of civil society groups calling on elected officials to sign the new Declaration of Internet Freedom and uphold basic rights in the digital world. The Declaration is simple; it offers five core principles that should guide any policy relating to the Internet: stand up for online free expression, openness, access, innovation and privacy

eff

correction is its called,

Declaration of Internet Freedom

take a read

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


That might be the case in an ideal world, but a Bill of Rights can't give you that. Privacy campaigners are always making a huge deal about governments infringing our rights on the Internet, but our government isn't what you should really be worrying about. A much bigger threat at the moment are the criminal groups who exploit peoples' ignorance and empty their bank accounts, or use their computer as remote storage for indecent images, or commit other serious crimes using your identity. The reality is the US and UK government are spending a lot of money trying to protect us against that.

while in public i expect my actions to be public but my comunications while in public to be PRIVATE

So what are you doing personally to achieve that? You cannot expect that privacy by sending your communications unencrypted over a public infrastructure. Any unencrypted traffic on the Internet is fair game.

we can reuse the existing infrastruture, with a new layer "encryption"

There are different types of encryption that work at different layers of the Internet.

why are we thinking tack on patches? to existing security?

Because that's how things work in real-life. Engineers develop a security measure, hackers find ways around it, so the design is improved. Security is a game of cat and mouse.

Originally posted by XeroOne
reply to post by XPLodER

 

That might be the case in an ideal world, but a Bill of Rights can't give you that. Privacy campaigners are always making a huge deal about governments infringing our rights on the Internet, but our government isn't what you should really be worrying about. A much bigger threat at the moment are the criminal groups who exploit peoples' ignorance and empty their bank accounts, or use their computer as remote storage for indecent images, or commit other serious crimes using your identity. The reality is the US and UK government are spending a lot of money trying to protect us against that.

so why risk public outrage, at letting copywrite barons troll the net for a civil infringer?
why risk people going underground because of petty copywrite?

So what are you doing personally to achieve that? You cannot expect that privacy by sending your communications unencrypted over a public infrastructure. Any unencrypted traffic on the Internet is fair game.

that is my point, people will be driven underground by this and everyone will encrypt,
how does that help law enforcement?
so that trolls can make money from trolling law suits?

There are different types of encryption that work at different layers of the Internet.

encrypt the harware back bone at the harware level
not at the user end level.

Because that's how things work in real-life. Engineers develop a security measure, hackers find ways around it, so the design is improved. Security is a game of cat and mouse.

internet security is too complex for a standard user,
everyone needs to know how to stay secure,

why is there no citrix for average internet users?

xploder