License to Surf, Take Two 503
NaugaHunter writes "A story on Yahoo asks
Should [a] License Be Required to Go Online? It appears to be suggested by Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for Counterpane Internet Security Inc. 'It could be a four-year college degree, a one-month course. It might be a good idea.' The story also details efforts of some schools from simple orientation to threats of fines for spreading viruses, and questions exactly who would be responsible for keeping track of who is and isn't licensed." Not a new idea, but one that's going to keep coming up. Update: 09/13 18:11 GMT by M : Bruce Schneier notes that he isn't in favor of computer licenses.
Just Hold Responsible (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you can require people to do stuff like take classes, but if they're neglegent, they should be held responsible.
oddly, enough, in England... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Blah. Blah and double blah I say. (Score:2, Informative)
I actually sent an e-mail to Bruce to discuss some things with blowfish about a year ago and he actually returned a very thoughtful and information e-mail. Most people as busy as him would not do so.
Perhaps there should be required training before posting on
Re:All I can say is WOW. (Score:3, Informative)
Are [wired.com] you [techweb.com] sure [oreillynet.com]?
Re:While we're at it... (Score:3, Informative)
A luser who runs an open relay and gets socked with a huge bandwidth bill (or worse) on account of spammers using his mailer deserves whatever he gets. Setting up an MTA to only accept outbound mail from selected hosts is trivial, if the software is well-designed. With the access-control software that's available (whether it's an SSH tunnel, POP-before-SMTP, or whatever), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anybody to run an open relay.
No licence needed... but some accountability.... (Score:2, Informative)
There are a lot of users out there who continually get viruses on their system, never patch their systems and never update their virus software( Some of my clients think that updating their virus software every year is being responsible!) and ask them what a patch is and they'll reply that it's something to help you stop smoking!.
Unless something changes, these same users will continue to get viruses and will continue to annoy other net users.
I think a better way of approaching it would be to have some form of virus filter at the ISP end. If a user got infected, the filter would turn off their connection ( or limit it to antivirus sites) until they disinfected their system.
I went through a period last year when one user on a major ISP here in Canada was infected with a virus and I was recieving hundreds of infected emails from them every day. I contacted them directly a number of times but received no response, so I contacted the ISP who refused to do anything. If it was set up to turn off their connection upon infection, then I (And everyone else in their address book) wouldn't have had to put up with all the crap that came from the virus.
Re:Blah. Blah and double blah I say. (Score:2, Informative)
BZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!
I call bullshit. Anybody who can call Bruce Schneier "some nobody" is truly "some nobody" themselves.
Bruce Schneier [wikipedia.org] is one of the top names in cryptography. *Alot* of the cryptographic functions we take for granted today came from his ground-breaking work, applied cryptography [amazon.com].
I guess what it comes down to, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk.
Re:All I can say is WOW. (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting factoid: all telephone use in (at least) the UK is actually licensed. Sure, it's a class license (essentially the kit is licensed by virtue of it being idiot-proof enough to allow the unwashed masses to use it safely) but it's still a license. This license can be, and sometimes is, withdrawn from individuals or groups if they're causing problems with the system.
The Quote is Wildly out of Context (Score:2, Informative)
A recent Associated Press story about licensing computer users has some people believing that I am in favor of the idea of licensing computer users.
I'm not. Period.
The idea is that users can potentially do damage with their computers, so why not force them to get licenses as we do for automobile drivers. While this is one potential way to deal with the problem of people having default security configurations and not installing their patches, I think that the damage that would do to the Information Age would be disastrous. And that it is a bad security trade-off.
It's interesting that people are taking this idea seriously, though. I think that the computer industry has painted itself into a corner. On the one hand, it has positioned computers as a mass-market consumer item. Everyone should own a computer. On the other hand, they have made computers so complex to administer that you need significant training to do it properly. One of the results of this is bad security, which we're seeing.
But I don't think the solution is to force computer users to be licensed. When I read my quote it's clear to me that I'm not saying that, but I want to correct the impression of anyone who does.
Bruce
Re:fsck those 4$$|-|013$ (Score:3, Informative)
If there were MASSIVE security holes in Linux as there are in windows you can bet your ass that these script kiddies would be all over them like a fly to dung. Linux IS more secure than Windows. Believe what you want but the facts speak for themselves. And yes there are other operating systems out there that are more secure than Linux but this "windows is more popular and that is why it gets the attention" line of bullshit really needs to stop. Check your facts before you spew this crap. It is really getting old.