Open computing facilities' security

Agree that networks magnify costs as well as benefits, and that security is one of the many "rules of the game" that participants either play by or get sent off. So yes - a privilege to participate can be taken away, it's not a right. Also agree that in open computing facilties, where a lot of the possible physical and procedural means of security can't apply, those responsible better strengthen the security they can control.
But if that worries you, isn't wireless internet access - especially from pre-paid phones (i.e. no identified subscriber)- going to freak you totally?

Sorry, but I feel the internet is a right, the govt. taxed us to develop involuntarily, we pay for people's salaries to develop it thru product purchases as they try to woe our business thru sales. You can't have it both ways, you can't expect the economies of a cheaper means to market to me after development, yet continue to inflate prices. What good is better service if you don't serve but a few with it ? Enough on the economics and marketing aspects of it.

Security will always be an issue, those who can't use it responsibly need to suffer the consequences. The current system catches some, yet they plea bargain and the guy winds up on CNN as an expert in the field of computer security, often cases is an author of a book as well. Glamorize it and it sends the wrong message. Evidently getting the most of this computer talent is what really should have been done in the first place. Had these people been paid well and even been able to fairly get a job as a programmer they would never had the time to do this crap. Yet we pay CEO's millions, when they are barely skilled enough to make presentations with PowerPoint. Bottom line, fix the disparity of earnings and access to better jobs, while rewarding true talent and I bet you see a lot of this crap go away. Or it still happens but is not as readily or easily available to the masses.

Your arguement is not fully thought out. Your opinion for businesses, institutions and individuals to be removed from internet access based on security would possibly halt the progression and evolution of the internet and computer industry.

Mindyou the internet is still in its embryonic stage. As with many new innovations and industries it is still evolving for practical and commercial applications. This is evident by the current work on Internet II. One needs only to reflect on the evolution of the radio and television.

The Internet and computers must be allowed to advance through the market as all other technologies and products have in the past.

Its growth and potential will be based on its consumption by users, numerous users. Those users will be the prospective market. When the free enterprise system is demeaned by vague solutions based on the abstract notion of one's rights and other preferences...our economy halts.

I believe we have a right to connect our computers to the internet/phone system within our country. Although I will also admit, that it is a prvilege to be allowed to send information through someone elses computer, Like a universities. They do not have to allow this.

With such liability, can trial lawyers be far behind? Firewall logs from my client base suggest that most NIMDA and CODERED activity today comes from unsecured, individual broadband nodes, i.e. from consumers who haven't a CLUE about security, i.e. from 'victims' who would readily (and greedily) be bound together in asbestos-style class action lawsuits. Any ISP deserving of survival will develop shutoff policies to protect itself from litigious death.

I agree that it is a privilege to be using the net.

My biggest concern is the apathy towards security issues by the general computing population. Part of this is the lack of education and the technical nature of the education that is available.Not everyone can be or wants to be a CISSP, but there needs to be a system set up that lets the lay person know why security is necessary.

Another issue is the complexity of the online help manuals for home security products. Companies who offerpersonal firewalls and other security products to home users need to understand that the average home user is not a computer guru. Most will just download the product and leave it configured for the default settings because the manuals are still tocomplex for them.

Bottom line: it does you no good the harden your systems unless the users are educated as to why this needs to be done.

Secure universities are practically a lost cause. Low funding with a high number of computers with a variety of software and systems in use make it practically immpossible to insure they are secure. Not to mention many students (many of which who are quite computer savvy) trying to use them, abuse them. Many students who use the campus computers as their main computers have become quite adept at getting around school security methods, many time just to play games or for p2p downloading. Anyway,if someone wants to wreak havoc on the internet and is any good at it, finding an anonymous launching pad isn't the worst of their troubles by far. We can't blame the city when someone uses their roads to drive to my house and rob me, can we?

I think that networks that perpetuate the distribution of viruses through demonstrated poor security should be fined. There should be cooperation between states in tracking down such offenders. And they should have cooperative legislation that acceptes evidence produced in other jurisdictions in order to prosecute and fine those offenders.

I do agree that internet access is very much a priviledge;furthermore, the fact that we live in a country that allows as to have this priviledge we take this access for granted. As mentioned in your e-letter, there are ways of makeing sure the systems used to access the internet are secure but dear I say that most of us are unaware of this problem. Unless you are really interested on how this whole thing works, most of us will just take it out of the box, plug it in and away we go. Education plays a big part on this issue and sadly most of have a real lack of it when it comes to internet security ( not net nanny )<< I feel that this is what most of us think when "net security" is mentioned......sad isn't it.

Because the nature of the Internet is itself made up from resources that are especially public I consider that Internet must be a right for everyone. Who can be the person/organization that can change this nature?
The security is the problem for resources owners. I think that nobody can forbid that someone to expose her/his opinions on Internet. Otherwise this Public Institution that is Internet will become an Institution of censure like it was Communism. I said these because I live in a country where Communism is felt in our day even.