Discussion on:

Why we give away our Internet privacy, according to Cory Doctorow

New Post

Experts have been warning us for awhile now. Here is another example from Cringely:

https://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/privacy-may-be-joke-companies-its-no-laughing-matter-the-rest-of-us-195230?source=IFWNLE_nlt_notes_2012-06-11

WE have been demanding that the perps be arrested, tried, and imprisoned. We have been making use of a multitude of pseudonyms and the occasional misleading posts to hide our preferences and interests in order to protect our own privacy while continuing to demand reform. We keep our eyes open and dodge around the corner when we seen the evil Google cam-cars tooling down the street, we look away from the evil goverments' surveillance cameras and cover our faces. We tint our car windows, cast mud on the plates or "protect" them with glaring scratched plastic or change them from time to time, and avoid toll booths. WE haven't signed up for FB, friendster, grouply, linkedin, myspace, Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Insecurity or OhBummercare. Live free. Live private.

that was my first though too.

"Tonto! Look at all those hostile Indians coming! We're in trouble!"
"What you mean 'we', white man?"

But, I am not optimistic as I used to be.

(insert Pink Floyd here)

Doctorow's short story I linked at the beginning. It's a quick read, but well-done...typical Cory.

Curious though. You are a member here at TR. You provided certain information to TR, to CBS, and so on... How did you view this web page? Lot's of TPV activity that is visible and invisible. I'm not so sure you are as private as you think.

one is NOT to provide the real details when signing up for a forum, another is to use things like Fire Fox with AdBlock Plus at set it to stop third party cookies and certain types of scripts etc, also add in Better Privacy which I think you told me about in an older blog.

One of the first things I block in AdBlock Plus is Googel Analytics - thus it makes it harder for them to know where I am, add in my pipe into the Internet is via either my ISP who is in a city across the other side of the country and my access is just as likely to link in through the Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide offices as their Sydney office, and my mail server and web site is hosted by a mob in Sydney, and the best anyone can know for sure from my IP is I'm in Australia but not get within 5 hours drive of where I am.

Having said that, the article is right to a certain extent, when I buy from an on-line service I have to give details about where it's to be delivered to. Luckily I deal with Aust businesses 98% of the time and they have to obey the Aust privacy laws which prevent them from doing a damn thing with that information. If I get real worried, there is a local service that will accept deliveries for me to collect later.

I do have one forum I subscribed to under a false ID simply because I was very suspicious of them at the start, and events have proven that true. Thus I know any mail addressed to that name that reaches me is very tainted. I've since closed that account, but still get contacts from the ID I gave there.

Oh, before I forget, want to see a real NASTY attack on your data privacy, check out Mundia's Terms of Use, Item 5, especially 5.1 to 5.3 - Nasty

http://www.mundia.com/au/TermsConditions

quote
For each item of content that you post, you grant to us and our affiliates a world-wide, royalty free, fully paid-up, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, and fully sublicensable (including to other Website users) license, without additional consideration to you or any third party, to: (i) reproduce, distribute, make available, transmit, communicate to the public, perform and display (publicly or otherwise), edit, modify, adapt, create derivative works from and otherwise use such content, in any format or media now known or later developed; (ii) exercise all trademark, publicity and other proprietary rights with regard to such content; (iii) use your name, photograph, portrait, picture, voice, likeness and biographical information as provided by you in connection with your content for the Service, in each case, in connection with your content. For example, after your registration or subscription has ended, we may continue to use and display any content that you previously posted, and other users may continue may access, change, edit, add to, subtract from or otherwise amend such content. If you do not want to grant us the rights set out in these Terms of Use, please do not post any content on the Website.
end quote

"One of the first things I block in AdBlock Plus is Googel Analytics"

Me too, in fact the first thing out of a clean install (after getting to firefox) is to install noscript and browse to a few sites that I know will throw up a ton of the trackers and ad servers that we'll want listed as untrusted.

I block all the usual suspects, akamai, --(btw read that name backwards) doubleclick and the like.

A good way to quickly hit a lot of scripts to block is do a google search for something popular and click on the top few results, eg "lady gaga," you'll get a lot of commercial results, the kind of sites that make .0004 cents every time some adserver loads a script.

The number of people that do this or even remotely know about it are minuscule. Getting someone to use NoScript is difficult at best.

And like all choices carries a balance of risk and reward. "You makes you choices and you takes your chances".

at least they are disclosing everything they're going to do with your content; how many sites do all this, but don't enumerate?

case about not making it that clear. Also, their major site and members are in the UK, and the UK laws require this level of notification.

We're outta the belly of the beast, too. People don't realize SS is 100% voluntary, you don't need to sign up, tho the 'world' has gone along with the agenda and it's difficult to negotiate without the number. (but it can be done, with consequences like not having any relationship with a bank)

The voluntary nature is why someone was able to sue Taco Bell and win, the issue being they asked for a SSN. They removed the question for a time, and IIRC later replaced it with a note that it's not required data.

The plaintiff had been turned down and the reason given was the application was incomplete, without a SSN. He successfully argued that since the program is voluntary, it can't be a cause of restraint.

Still, our ISP alone makes up for any lack of our voluntarily coughing up data. I also have a youtube account. The result I'm sure is that the powers that be are satisfied they have enough of a finger on us.

Once cameras and facial recognition are widespread, including on board drone aircraft, it'll be Star Trek (NG) tracking, without need of a com badge.

Then it doesn't matter whether you block Analytics or not. They have you.

If you log out they don't get the global tracking info, but it's a PITA cleaning out cookies and disabling the scripts every time, then re-enabling same when I want to use the youtube account, which is almost never. In fact I just uploaded my first video last week, and now have a grand total of 2 up there.

Granted almost no one would bother to the extent I go.

BTW my reference was after installing a system for a client. I try to get as many sites blocked as possible, swiftly. I don't know what a lot of them do afterward, but there's not a lot of facebook or other 'social' stuff going on. They're mostly busy business folk.

Some do use gmail, they're definitely among the 'big data.'

I figured you would be ultra-safe.

Do you mean collecting social security is voluntary because paying the tax never has been voluntary. There was no lawsuit filed in the Taco Bell case.

http://www.curiousevidence.com/(S(gdoih5r3mezdk1htcrdhfwvx))/samples.aspx?id=23
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/

But the "administrative state" has been bought into lock stock and barrel by the so-called "employers."

They are fictional entities owing their "benefits" to the state. Good luck finding someone who'll honor your status, should you elect to not have a SSN.

But obtaining the number, opting in from the outset, MUST BE (and is) 100% voluntary, or it simply violates all tenets of law, every court decision on the matter (regarding ultimate, original jurisdiction) and the 13th amendment.

In fact status as a "US citizen" (or "citizen of the United States," but no other spelling) is also totally voluntary. You are actually entrapped by fraud, perpetuated by media, 'public education' and plain old assumption.

One example of media perpetuating fraudulently obtained status is the harping upon stories surrounding "anchor babies." There is no such thing, but the system is pleased to assume they have a status, in order to not draw the curtain back on the truth of the situation.

One cannot be free and have been made responsible for a legal fiction involuntarily at the same time. If you do your research and ask the courts nicely they will ultimately admit this is true.

To be honest, where I am is nearly untenable, but only because the system has so totally choked every aspect of life with a constructive fraud as to be near impossible to 'live normally.'

My wife and I are last of a dying breed: free Americans. Damn proud of our status, too. If only 5% of the population would do as we have, there would be no budget deficits, wars, fake usury-based money, a lot of the present ills would evaporate overnight.

Basically we live on the receiving end of a collective "yeah, but just try it!" Thing is we have, and we're holding our own. The borg has been behaving quite honorably, have been since the supremes read my writ circa 2006.

We simply have faith things will work out. Plans, especially involving money, are pipe dreams not founded in reality. I was warning people 30 years ago that your being crammed into a 401(k) or similar (involuntarily) is simply a rip-off scam, you'll get close to retirement and "aw, gee, looks like you lost most of it when the 'market' tanked."

To be honest I'm shocked the present appearances (of a functional system) have lasted this long.

Your links are as bogus as the email straw men they stand up to tear down. Annenburg, for example, ASSUMES one is a "US citizen," for whom there are in fact NO rights, except those remedies provided by congress in it's (private) codes and regulations. The overarching question is 'when and how DID I become such "US citizen" as that term is defined by laws of congress?'

You have to realize the ruse would have to be so deep as to be literally impossible to uncover. It is nearly bottomless, but a few of us have evolved a bit beyond the need for a state. We're waiting for the rest of y'all to catch up, which sure won't be in my lifetime, nor my grand children's...

For the record I do not advocate anyone do anything remotely like I have done. There's probably 10 of us out here that want the status of unencumbered by any involuntary body corporate or body politic. To an outsider I imagine it looks like a religious thing, maybe in a way it is.

Bottom line I just don't like being lied to, and being assumed to be too stupid to know a game when it's being foisted on me.

I am not understanding you being "the last of a dying breed?"

I knew of a few who were in the Posse Comitatus who never got an SSN, and the rest of it is fuzzy in my mind, but it seemed like they refused to sign any check, or go into certain contracts - they never paid taxes - but then I doubt the IRS could get a case against them, because the used barter and trade almost exclusively.

Do you mean to tell me that you have no medical insurance and no retirement? I assume that the answer is that you (1 are willing to take the risk that nothing bad will happen to you, (2 are so well off that it does not matter, or (3 have some form of "private" (commercial) insurance/retirement. Are the commercial providers somehow less invasive of your privacy? My medical insurance provider is very invasive. And what, exactly, is one supposed to do if they cannot afford commercial insurance? Some people will trade privacy for medical care.

I was nearly killed by medical error a few years back, requiring an emergency procedure to prevent me from bleeding to death internally. I almost didn't make it.

They ran up a huge bill, around 30k, which I'm paying out of pocket as I am able.

I will work until I drop dead.

Thanks for that link. I especially liked the "stupidity trifecta," I have a client or two that'll be getting that link in their emails today.

BTW are there actually more than 2 reasons someone would install a bittorrent client?

Could someone please give a plausible, practical, and reasonable end to this sentence:
"Would you still use Facebook, if???

Cory was the first person I've found who has attempted to explain why? I find that mysterious in of itself.

since I've never used it. I've had Twitter and LinkedIn accounts but closed both. This place is the only active 'social' site I belong to. Yeah, Google tracks my searches, but I do consider that to be a worthwhile exchange.

Right?

Nothing that wasn't already available in public records or my resume. Finding some of it would have required manually searching paper documents, but it was already out there. Nothing I'm worried about being used for anything other than targeted advertising, and that's going to be more shotgun than sniper.

That is does not take much to make you unique and therefore trackable.

they did NOT allow any person or organization to (1) access any data associated with your Facebook account, including your Facebook page, unless you have declared that person or organization to be a friend, and (2) access any data which reveals which other Facebook members with whom you are "friends" regardless of whether that person or organization is also your "friend"?

had user terms that stated using the app allowed them to collect and use your Facebook data. Hmm, one wonders how much they can trust what Facebook themselves say as they don't control all the apps themselves.

That is a major loophole being well exercised in the mobile app world.

We are seeing this in the mobile realm. TPVs are getting the same permissions as the apps and we do not have any idea who the TPVs are or what they intend to do with our information.

In your context, it doesn't seem that TPV means "third party verification" (which is required by law for some transactions).

I think the point of the open ended question is for each person to ask themelves just how much will they accept before saying "no" to Facebook or any other company/individual/government agency and to analyze that response to see if they are willing to give up privacy for that little food pellet now.

You're right (as far as I can tell); he was imploring slowly-boiling frogs to say when they might suddenly perceive that the water's too hot....

Does that really happen?

It seems like things are beginning to change! The news is full of stories about privacy becoming a rapidly increasing concern, and there is at least one brave company that seeks to arm the rebels. A new social media platform called Sgrouples offers most of the features as Facebook, but with total privacy to respond to market demands.

To any web site you visit.

Since I began using NoScript with FF (and more recently DNT+), I've been made quite aware of the number of ad networks and data tracking sites that many commercial sites (TR included) use on a single page.

What's frustrating is how some sites won't even serve up some (or all) content unless the ad network/tracking site/s is/are allowed access to your browsing data.

When that happens, do you allow access to your information or not?

Also, you may be interested in my article about ScriptNo for Chrome:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/scriptno-a-preemptive-strike-against-script-attacks-for-chrome/7962

without the ads, then I email the webmaster and the senior staff of the company the site is for and complain, and let them know that they just lost my business and I now have them on my not recommended list. A few have responded and made changes, but many don't reply and I don't go back to check the site.

We Stand with you, be Paranoia and stealth skills go up that a + that why I am IT so I can know how to hide, I can go dark in a blink

Interesting, Bayen. I wonder if that is even possible any more -- simply having a driver's license removes the possibility.

I have heard from a psychology/sociology expert who says this is primarily an American thing. That Americans are quicker to give up privacy and often see it as a status indicator. I am American, and I cancelled my FB account. I wonder what members from overseas think of this idea...
And just to add on to the section referencing B.F Skinner's "intermittent reinforcement", This kind of conditioning is is actually much harder to break. If the rat receiving the food every time suddenly stops getting pellets, it doesn't take long for the rat to stop pressing the lever. If the food from the random lever stops, the rat will go on and on for much longer with out reward.
God, I hope we aren't just rats pressing levers!

Thank you for sharing that information.

As for more of an American thing, I am not sure. Maybe our overseas members will help us out.

in contact with a few people I needed to at that time when I had a bad dial up service. I closed it some years back and don't have an account with any of the social media sites, but do have some like here at TR (and TR has the most info on me) and have a few other forums where they have very little in the profile. All the information on me in any of the profiles is already freely available from other public sources anyway. I do have my browser (Fire Fox) set to stop ALL tracking except first party tracking within their site. Heck I got AdBlock plus so well trained (and no I do NOT use a subscription but create my own filters as I go with it's built in capability) that I don't even see the ads here at TR.

Is that all of the technology is based on reactionary information such as signatures. So there will always be some that are not caught.

who pay the list manager NOT to block their ads. That's why I use no subscription list a d use the "Show Blockable Items' option to see what's happening and create my own list. It's specifically targeted to the sites I use and is a dang sight faster to run as it's less than one tenth of any subscription list. But anything new requires I have to amend the 'signature' or site list in the filters. However, the upside is the majority of them rely on third party cookies and my blanket blocking of third party cookies kills a lot off as well.

But, I see what you do as not being workable for a vast majority of users.

a large majority of my clients now are real technophobes, yet I've trained several in how to do this as it's so simple. In the next few weeks I'll be writing up a short document with screen shots on how to do this, if I remember when I'm finished, I'll send you a copy to look at. The process is very simple and easy to do.

edit to answer pgit
when I get the document done up I'll dump it to drop box and come back here to post the link for all to see, as well as put it on my web site. Yeah after all this talk about security I do have a lot of personal type info (but not what I call private) on my own web site, along with a lot of other neat stuff and educational documents.

edit to reply to Michael,

I agree that millions go on-line, but the process is not hard, nor is it complicated, just a little harder than using a bookmark, so it's simple to teach people and well within the skills scope of the average user. However, it all comes back to that old saying about leading horses to water ......

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could post it to a public upload site so's we could all have a look. I've contemplated doing similar, but I never seem to have the time.

But, several does not account for the millions who just want to get online and do their thing.

I was afraid I said something to make you mad and you defriended me

I ended up closing the FB account as I was getting several hundred emails a day from FB about people doing things on FB - all but about one a month related to playing games or wanting to have me use this FB add on etc. I got fed up and trashed everything on it. Closed everything down, changed all the info, and to0ld them to kill it. Last I heard, about two months later they still hadn't killed it. But this was before they had those court cases about not killing accounts, so it may be dead by now.

If it's TR, then best send me another befriend whatever for TR as I was inactive for quite a while due to health and a few other life issues.

I haven't joined Facebook, primarily because of its "flexi-privacy" policies. On top of that I can do without the distractions.

That said, I am in Facebook, unwillingly, simply because friends and family have uploaded their images and tagged these with names and locations.

So, despite not wanting FB to intrude into my privacy, and even without giving them permissions to do so, my details are available to other FB users and FB clients. WTF?

Coming from the dark ages was thought to be a good thing.It meant a brighter future and healthier community for all. Now it seems that brighter future has gone into the crapper so to speak. Long ago when computers and the Internet where babys, it was known never to use real any info in creating a profile or account.Now there are bots and tricks used to actually locate you or shut you down if you use a fake ID. So now the really serious problem is WHO! the @7&% are these goofs who we don't know from Adam or Eve that think they have the right to know who we are and what we should like ?????

as much as possible whenever using Internet, and the best way is to use VPN, proxy or secure tunnelling, also encrypted connections (PirateRay, for example)

I don't have a Facebook page. Someone does have a Facebook page in this name, opened after I began to use the name, and a previous screen name met the same fate. Many blogs will not allow you to change your screen name, and associate it permanently with your IP address.
I've seen Terms and Conditions similar to the one cited, and decline every time. The attorneys who draft this do not expect people to recognize that this means "When you check this box, we own your computer and all of the actions of anyone who uses it, in perpetuity, and we will use this information to own your employment and your life, if we can get away with it."
I signed something like this at the ripe old age of 12, to get my dad out of a child support jailing, and a couple of White criminal racketeering families made good money out of raiding my writing and running my employers into short sales for several years.

Is to setup accounts on the social networks, lock them down, and do not use them. Just so that no one else will use your name and cause grief that way.

Every now and then I run by content that I can't access, which through trial and error I have discovered is served off facebook.

Whatever the content, usually video, has been uploaded to their facebook account, and is linked (or embedded) on another page, usually a news source.

If I want to access the content, I have to temporarily allow scripts from facebook. Any hope of avoiding those tentacles is out the window. Toast. Like unprotected sex with a hooker with AIDS.

Has anyone compared fb to a hooker with AIDS before? Wadda ya think? Apt? Over the top??

nt

That means they have accessed and or deposited what they need. You are then owned. Once is enough.

I understand they get whatever the present context, but if one cleans out stored data and disallows their domain again, are they still capable of tracking beyond that one viewing?

track what you do next, but they can kept stored what they know you've done and add to it next time they pick you up.

It's about gathering sensitive information about you as well.

Is anyone else having problems seeing the last illustration? For me the last part of the article appears as:
"Would you still use Facebook, if???

(The illustration is courtesy of Red Nose Studio and Cory Doctorow???s image is courtesy of Jonathan Worth/Creative commons.)"

Oil-sharks and privacy-sharks, both from the same corporate-shark family.

It is time that it is going to change into the other direction, that good sites stand up and GIVE people privacy and freedom. Win customers by being humane, kind and just, instead of greedy, blunt and EVIL.

Another BIG / HUGE niche in the market, a new social network that stands up for the right of it's customers. Come on all entrepreneurs! Start launching new search engines, social networks, mailhosts, etc.

Make privacy and freedom the new trend.

Then Facebook and others either have to comply or just go out of business.

Don't let the few control the many, there are more people then facebooks, choose freedom!

Just monetize on this niche. The net is big enough for all of us. And if Zucherman doesn't mind about privacy, then why doesn't someone make "zuckermansdata.com" and show the world all the data that he and his family generate..

Oh, I got carried away? :-D

Just make things just.

Just do it.

....And VOTE on the right things, not on lies.

Who's going to pay the operating costs of these utopian sites of yours? Freedom isn't free; someone has to put up the money to start and run the sites you propose. The current sites you disdain use the sale of participants' data and the resulting targeted advertising to fund their operations. if you aren't going to use that model, how do you plan to 'monetize this niche'? Subscriptions? Pay as you go?

I know of several sites where they have a basic service for free, and then you pay a fee for the ability to use the advanced capabilities of the site. They've been around for a number of years and look like being around for many more. Thus, I see this format as being very viable.

Who is now paying for Fakebook, Live, Google, Msn, etc.? Could it be you?

It's just the same thing, I don't call it a utopia YOU do. I merely inform about a more humane option. Good to know that you call that a utopia. Though in my opinion it is only a small improvement.

All you do is build a new site and the one and only tiny difference that I was speaking about is the EULA (and of course live up to it).

All they have to do is pay a little respect for they users, and streamline their policy into that direction.

A new site can make money in a new way, just be creative, and ok if you are not creative and don't care about YOUR freedom then just ignore it all. Keep your head in the ground and let then screw you over and over again. (didn't mean it like it sounds, English is not my native lingo and I don't know how else to put it)

Thus how to monetize on this niche takes some creativity. It might not be as easy as just being evil and filling your pockets. But at least your customers will respect you back.

I did a simplemindes google search and these names poped up

Securemail
TorProject
BTGuard
Anmonimiser
i2p
privacyprotect.org
ghostery
noscript
adblocker
and many more... All these people manage to monetize on privacy some in the good way some in the bad way, i don't know all these sites... It just shows that there is a need for privacy. And let me add to that that privacy by default would be a benefit for all of us. From that moment on we all can start working on stuff that REALY brings humanity to a next level. All this greedy **** keeps us humans PRIMITIVE.

Think about it, find your niche and grow without being greedy.

Zuckerman only wants more money although he has MORE then enough, that is extreme greed, Just like Bill Gates, Ballmer, Bush to name a few...

Have a nice and humane day!

Wow any article I've read in the last few months about the internet leaves a sinking feeling in my gut. I remember the good old days before the internet where computers were still able to increase productivity without the trade-offs of being online. I remember when learning used to be found in books instead of webpages, when people were more concerned with family and friends then the latest "trending" video or post or tweet, when a phone call and letters were the staples of communication. It's sad that for several millenia people were able to survive just fine without the internet and yet today people claim the internet as an inalienable right--something that they can't possibly live without or thrive without. Seriously when did our online connections start to take precedence over our families and neighbors and friends. The reason I joined facebook was to keep in touch with old friends and acquaintances. But 90% of them I haven't seen in years and even after joining facebook my digital--read as: not actual-- interactions with them have been minimal at best. My wife found out the wedding date of her cousin (who she is quite close to) via facebook rather than an announcement, phone call, or even email. When I heard that I was shocked and saddened. I think Tolkien may have been speaking of the internet when he penned the words, "one ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." What other construct has the same ability to strip our identities and humanity away into a series of ones and zeros and then trap us in the illusion that those ones and zeros have any real meaning. I think I'm going to go and call my wife and ask her how her day is going.

I had forgotten the Tolkien quote. And now I have a new analogy to think about.

And the original launch of the 'web,' which was a link between compuserve and the FAA and NOAA computers via arpanet.

I remember if you found any "resource" out there you felt like you just made alien contact. It took off slowly at first, but by around 2000, the 'web' was indeed a wild-wild west.

As recently as 3-4 years ago I could find arcane things easily, often times it would be some individual with their own server, very low hit rates, but the engines found the content nevertheless.

Now, it seems paid results or "mainstream" commercial sites are all you get. I won't go on a rant, I'll just say that the web is definitely not as useful (to me at least) now than it was back in the golden age, ca 2004. It's harder to find things that are outside of the "mainstream," and overall diversity is on the decline.

The way I see it the following is the list of challenges for the internet.
1. It was never designed to be what it has become, and thus has a lot of vulnerabilities, issues, oversights, etc.

2. The anonymous nature of the internet which breeds behaviors which better judgement or fear of consequences would normally curtail in the real world. I don't believe me or my neighbors should be able to look up instructions on how to make bombs, meth, etc online. What possible good could come of that?

3. This is highly related to #2 but the identity problem with the internet. I should have an identity that is just as real and culpable as my real world one. I should own my internet presence and if I was stupid enough to post plans for how to build bombs on the internet and someone read those, built a bomb, and used it to kill people I should be held accountable for my part in it. If that means that I need a full background check or clearance of some sort in order to have a website, access to the internet, etc then so be it. I am an adult and if I am not willing to take responsibility for what I do online I should be denied access.

4. The security/vulnerability issues. I would argue that network design could also function for the internet. Why can't we have a more secure closed borders internet that encompasses the US and includes a DMZ for those businesses that need/want an international footprint/presence. We could even have a more secure closed borders internet and one less secure open internet that would be opt in. I realize the US has its share of malware authors, hackers, hacktivists, identity thieves, etc but how could cutting out the foreign threat hurt?

5. Information farming, privacy exploiting, whatever you want to call it. If my information is so valuable then I should have a right to compensation. I would much rather pay for a service and have the option of allowing an entity to use my information in return for financial compensation or reduced bills or whatever then not be given the choice. It's information about me so I own it. There's a term for following people around in the real world, it's called stalking and is a crime. Why should cyberspace be any different?

6. A set of laws, guidelines, standards for the internet, I don't really see why these should be any different then real world laws but I'm open to the idea that in some cases they would be.

I would argue that with a better design the internet would be a much more suitable place for people to roam. The internet does allow for fantastic capabilities/possibilities for consumers, education, and business alike. But there has got to be a better way to do it then the current system. Especially since the current system is essentially flying by the seat of our pants.

PS. This list was in no way meant to be comprehensive. It's just the things that have been weighing on my mind the last few months.

I suspect.

to stalk you or control you to do the job with a lot more ease. Anonymity is a part of the non-Internet life, their are ways to do things anonymously away from the Internet, so it should stay a part of the on-line life. re the bombs, ask anyone from Europe who was ten years or older in 1939 if they could have used such knowledge. I've never looked for bomb making on the Internet, yet I know how to make a fertiliser bomb as I was shown how to make explosives that way in my teens due to it being a standard way to destroy large rabbit burrows - a few half pound packs and boom, no rabbits. If people really want to learn things, they will; the Internet just makes it a bit easier.

The easiest way to secure your company against bad Internet activity is to NOT have the corporate network connected to the Internet, I know a few that work that way, and they don't have to worry about hackers etc. They have no need for all the electronic linkages the net gives people today, so they don't use them. but that's something that should be looked at on an organisational basis.

I agree with point 5.

Re point 6, there are a hell of a let of International standard, but there is no set of International laws to force adherence to them. This is both true in real life and the Internet, Microsoft totally ignore most of the International standards on computer software interoperability, just as the US congress and China have been ignoring the International laws on Copyright for decades.

If you make changes to the Internet to make it as fully secured as Microsoft have been pushing for over the last 20 years you totally destroy what it was created for in the first place, and that would be a major shame. The intent and original design was for a communication system that worked without the need to establish an end to end link and would work its own way around lost nodes. To get the high security Microsoft and Intel promoted with Palladium and you ask for here, you have to do away with send and forget capabilities and self rerouting.

1 - You come into my yard, you play by my rules.
2 - The pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake is a legitimate human drive.
3 - Agree
4 - Is the US taking lessons in statehood from the North Koreans?
5 - My take is that I don't care what you know about me as the law limits what you can actually do with that information.
6 - See 1.

If the world is too complex for someone to handle, we don't limit everyone else's access, we expect them to seek assistance. Same thing online.

Compuserve! When all you needed was a 1200 baud modem and yearly 800 service! Them was exciting times!!

good results, then we started to get web sites designed by semi-intelligent posteriors that add meta codes for everything under the sun to increase the search hits their pages get; Google started putting paid for hits at the top of the page, regardless of the very low relevancy, and a few other issues. Now, to get a reasonable result you have to be a Google search criteria expert and use the advanced mode to exclude all sorts of crap. For example, watch to search for info on a person, the first thing is to exclude Facebook, linkedin, twitter, and the other social media crap or you'll get about ten thousand hits for people who are NOT the one you want. You also have to use the double apostrophes to put around the key data to ensure they see a perfect match on that part - eg "Dell gx520" will restrict to anything with that in it, while Dell gx520 will get everything in the world with the word dell (including nursery rhymes) and anything with gx520 (including weird tools etc) as a prime example.

With every idiot self-abuser and his canine female friend also using third party tracking and ad serving, well, it stinks worse than a fifty day old garbage strike.