Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

License to Surf, Take Two

Comments Filter:
  • Great... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by G33kDragon ( 699950 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @11:26PM (#6949819) Homepage
    So once the users are educated with a basic set of computing knowledge, and when only people that actually know what they are doing are using computers...what's going to happen to lovely tech support?
  • by BattyMan ( 21874 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @11:29PM (#6949836) Journal
    To drive a car
    to fly an airplane
    to use any radio transmitter beyond minimal power walkie-talkies, cellphones or 802.11.

    All these things are done to help enhance the safety of everyone using the medium.

    The signal to noise ratio of the Internet (maybe I oughta make that noise to signal) is typical of things which are totally out of control...
  • by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @11:31PM (#6949842)
    Actually, thats not so bad of an idea... well... anyways the taxing email part.

    Although, not for the reasons you mentioned... having say a 1 cent tax per email cent, would perhaps be one of the only solutions to solving spam. In a year... I send perhaps... 7300 emails ( figuring 20 per day ) ... so... in the long run, It would cost me about 7.30$ a year...

    Now just think about how much money this would cost spammers??? It would cut back *ALOT* on spam, at least IMHO.

    Granted... this was an off topic post... but you started it! :)
  • by JohnDenver ( 246743 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @11:37PM (#6949881) Homepage
    From considering that maybe companies like Microsoft should be held liable for knowningly shipping an insecure product?

    The last thing I want to see is the software be subjected to the same liability/litigation as the aerospace industry, but I don't believe a EULA should protect a manufacturer from not fixing a product that is inherantly secure.

    The question we need to ask ourselves, "Has Microsoft knowingly done nothing to fix a security hole?"

    Nah! Let's just legislate RTFM!
  • by BattyMan ( 21874 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @11:39PM (#6949894) Journal
    In order to get a SCUBA tank filled with compressed air you have to flash certification credentials saying that you've the knowledge to use it without killing yourself.

    Could ISP's not require _some_ sort of credentials assuring them that you've a clue?

    I see an apalling level of ignorance, from modern electronic office workers, whose _jobs_ consist of reading and sending email, building webpages, making PowerPoint presentations, expressing themselves via "desktop publishing" & spreadsheets, doing www research, and on and on. Despite _making_a_living_ off their computer "skills", they're totally clueless.

    But then, plenty of the licensed motor vehicle operators I see are clueless, too, and the fact that they had to get a license first does not help them - one bit.
  • No (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dswensen ( 252552 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @12:35AM (#6950121) Homepage
    As a tech support drone, I have to say that the second people have to have the slightest idea what the hell they're doing in order to get online, I am out of a job. So, no.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @12:42AM (#6950150)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @12:46AM (#6950167) Homepage
    Still, it's probably a good idea anyway- a lot of viruses and worms rely on users doing silly things.

    The classic example is urban legends, these entirely rely on the misbehaviour of users- I've multiple times received emails warning me about LSD stickers going around that look like superman, about microsoft sending money to anyone that replied to an email etc. etc. These get sent by the hapless orginator who thinks they are doing the right thing, and often are sent to a huge distribution list.

    The Microsoft one went around where I used to work and caused an email storm, where several hundred people all asked to be removed from the email distribution list. Trouble was, there was no distribution list, it was just a Cc'd email. This went on for several days with people calling each other names, and replying to everyone each time. It was ghastly; and the email servers were taking a severe beating with several hundred emails each being forwarded to several hundred destinations. And the whole thing was a hoax that anyone with google could check in 30 seconds flat.

    This kind of thing can be mostly avoided by training people with access to email.

  • by MattCohn.com ( 555899 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @12:52AM (#6950176)
    And does the spammer pay, or does the pour sap with the open relay just get their connection yanked and faced with a bill they (arguably) didn't deserve?
  • I would like to see a highly publicized case of holding some home broadband user responsible for the fact that their machine was hijacked to send spam or participate in some DDoS.

    I've talked to too many people who've said, "I don't need to bother securing my home system because I've got nothing anyone would want." I've answered, "They want to use your machine to attack me." But the message doesn't sink in.

    While these end users are being provided with crap systems, there is a market out there. If their choice of bad systems gets them severly spanked, they will start making demands of their providers.

    All it would take would be a couple of high profile cases.

  • by Josuah ( 26407 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @01:01AM (#6950204) Homepage
    One thing which I haven't seen mentioned is how you would license a 3-year-old child. Anyone with small children and a computer is likely to understand that children at this age are already capable of using the computer to learn. Educational software is an existing market.

    "Grown-up" software has moved into the online realm because of the opportunities it offers in improving the user experience and program functionality. I would not be surprised to start seeing children's software do the same, although we're not there yet. Plus, children are learning more advanced topics at younger ages (well, at least some children are, Apple IIe anyone?) and it only makes sense for this to continue. I learned about modems, BBSes, and online research when I was maybe 8? Whenever 386s were top-of-the-line.

    Also, what exactly does going online mean? If I pop in a DVD, it might take me to a web site. If I install some game software, it might register over my Internet connection. If I type www.dizney.com instead of www.disney.com, am I in trouble? Does using a computer now require a parental lock-out password to prevent unlicensed children from sending any packets over the wire? How does that work if my child's home directories are stored on a file server that is also my DNS server? Does the password and its behavior live on the file server?
  • by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug.opengeek@org> on Saturday September 13, 2003 @01:27AM (#6950281) Homepage Journal
    I agree 100 percent with the education bit. It should start with our representitives and move upward from there.

    The part I hate the most is the Microsoft snow job. Everyone is using the software, Gates is a genius (which he is with regard to business BTW), something else must be done to preserve motherhood, apple pie and the American way right?

    If you toss IE and Outlook, half of this goes away. A company with large cash reserves should not be allowed to push the burden onto its users. Something is wrong with that. This is one of the reasons I will not buy any Microsoft software --I don't want to contribute to the problem.

    Microsoft gets tons of free tech support and still gets to make most of the money for its (broken) software. Why? Contracts and the general inability of our lawmakers to recognize software for what it is.

    Personally, I hope the problems continue. Maybe people will begin to get a clue when some of their peers start to move away from the one size fits all intergrated Microsoft solution onto one that does the same things, but does not have anywhere near the number of potential issues to deal with.

    Funny, I was working with a company today. The systems folks were laughing about how their investment in Lotus Notes was starting to pay off. At first, they considered it a mistake because it cost a lot and Exchange seemed to be a better deal. There was pressure to move off of the platform and onto Exchange to save money and administrative costs. The last couple of years have changed their tune.

    They are considering either Mozilla and or Opera as their default browser to gain some more of the benefit they stumbled into with Lotus Notes.

    So, go ahead and run win32. It's not a bad OS. (Would not be my choice though.) Just get rid of the problem areas.

  • by Enigma Deadsouls ( 700792 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @01:36AM (#6950320)
    What about some kind of regulation (whether through the government or the telco) as to what kind of e-mail client would reside on the clients computer?

    That would be a stupid idea. First there is the problem of people who use different os.. so this would mean if I chose to use an os thats not supported by the client I am screwed and can't send/receive emails? Then comes the problem of how trustworthy the government/telcos are. Remember carnivore? Wouldn't the government just love it if they could just make all email clents automatically send them email. Then what about encryption? Would options like PGP not be able to work? Maybe they would let PGP work however it would send the government the email pre-encrypted.. or better yet the government will give you the option of encryption in the client.. however an encryption with a known backdoor so the government can read it.

    I'm sorry.. I just don't like the idea of a government/telco regulated/issued email client.

    What about e-mails originating from overseas? Those wouldn't be taxed and therefore wouldn't really put much of a damper on spam coming from across the ocean.

    Well then how would a government/telco regulated/issued client fix this problem? What gives the right to a government/telco to tell other countries what email client they must use? What if these countries don't comply? Does this mean all email from the countries would be blocked? That would really be pain in the ass for people who conduct international business.

    The internet is a place of freedom... freedom to use whatever os/browser/email client/other I wish... lets keep it that way.
  • by dalutong ( 260603 ) <djtansey@@@gmail...com> on Saturday September 13, 2003 @01:39AM (#6950333)
    3. Companies would then become even more controlling. They would say "we will protect you from these fines, so long as we have absolute control over your system. We can install software when we feel we need to, etc. Okay?" and the 50,000,000 internet users who don't want to worry about updating their anti-virus software say, "okay."

    Good-bye, Software Choice. You were a swell guy.
  • Give me a break (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr. Transparent ( 77005 ) * on Saturday September 13, 2003 @03:00AM (#6950560) Homepage Journal
    This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Do you really think that a stupid course is going to do anything towards limiting the amount of times users screw up? Half the time people screw up (or more) is because people are lazy. It won't matter if you make someone take a stupid course. They still have to actually do something to prevent problems.

    Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.

    If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.

    If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.

  • Just online? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @04:33AM (#6950713) Homepage Journal
    Just for going online? There should be a mandatory course for using computers at all.

    Hey, hey - before you mod "Troll", think about this:

    * You can't drive without a license
    * You can't operate heavy machinery
    * You can't practice medicine

    etc.

    We already cover most points where people can do damage to either themselves or others with mandatory education. It makes sense, too.

    It doesn't have to be "elitest". It can be as simple as driving school in most of the US, where you hop in a car with the local sherrif for 10 minutes and show him that you know which pedal does what.

    Of course, computers being more complicated, there's also a different answer. I'll post that in a new reply, so you can mod this one down all you like. :)
  • by Casshan-Robot Hunter ( 705420 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @06:15AM (#6950913)
    Actually, it is NOT public infrastructure. The major backbones of the internet are privately owned and the companies that own them (such as AT&T) allow their free use. They make so much off just having this infrastructure for their own use that they can afford this.

    Also, let us consider the fact that the US does NOT exclusively own the internet (or WWW) anymore. World-wide, remember? I think it is time that the US government stopped trying to regulate areas they have no business in. They have no right to tell us what we can say in conversation, in a letter, or in a phone call. The same should apply to the internet.
  • Re:Can we (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hamster foo ( 697718 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @06:31AM (#6950939)
    "I know who think it's ok to go 10mph over the speed limit"

    Are we talking ok from a safety stand point? If so then they very well may be right. A safe speed is dependent on a lot of things, and a sign with big numbers on it is hardly one of them. If it's a bright sunny day outside, it's obviously safe to go faster than if it's raining outside. Different vehicles are safer to operate at higher speeds due to having the proper tires among other factors. In the state I used to live in they raised the speed limit on a highway I commonly traveled from 55 to 70 without any change to the highway. Did it suddenly become ok to travel on that road at 15 mph over the previous speed limit?

    Legally, there isn't much argument. The government says it's illegal so it is. But the qualifications of goverment agencies to set appropriate speed limits, presumably based on safety concerns, is somewhat questionable.
  • by blibbleblobble ( 526872 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @08:00AM (#6951057)
    "the programmers are in a better position to fix these problems rather than trying to distribute the responsibility to users"

    Exactly. As much as some people would like a government-approved "way to use your computer" training course, how useful can it really be?

    Lycoris recently included a virus-checker in their GNU/Linux distribution, despite the fact that there are no known viruses which propogate on such a system, and their virus definition file was empty. Their reason? "The IT departments won't let us buy a computer unless it comes with a virus checker"

    Now if even IT departments can demand a microsoft-centric view of how you should run your computer, then can we expect anything better from a government? "don't run binary executables, but if you get one from windows update, run it without question..."

    Would anybody here even be able to sit through an exam writing "I run MS-Office Update every day [on my BSD machine]" without walking out, or swapping nasty words with whoever set the test?

    I can see health insurance on tongue-biting injuries increasing significantly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13, 2003 @08:30AM (#6951120)
    Driving a passenger car does not require much training or certification compared to driving an 18-wheel tractor trailer.

    Allow minimal training to operate a system that requires little technical knowledge and has a proven track record of defeating malware.

    Require greater training or certification to connect to the Internet with a system that requires extensive configuration or has a bad track record for malware.

    Periodically review the malware records to allow for vendors who suddenly "get religion".

  • by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Saturday September 13, 2003 @11:26AM (#6951681)
    You sound a bit elitist to me. I'll agree that there may not be a linear relationship between usage and information; certainly some people could be stricken from the net without the rest of us noticing. But everyone having e-mail is pretty useful, too. Then again, I may not be the one to ask. I don't get spam, and I've been largely unaffected by blaster and sobig.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...