This post is not about politics, it is about technical problems.
The main problem is, in order for this legislation to work the entire Internet has to be reorganized, in it's foundation that was proposed by DARPA as self-healing network organized by totally independent nodes. It was organized to sustain nuclear war. The idea of centralization in such case would be killing. Now when Internet is up and running, Hollywood that don't understand how it works requested simply to control it. It is not possible, unless everything will be reorganized, instead of self-healing, self-sustaining unbreakable network, into a hierarchical structure.
When experts tried to explain to congressmen details, the answer was simple, like, "We are not hackers and don't want to know how it works, it is your business". Similarly, to create new law for birds to fly under water, and does not matter how they would do that. Or, to demand from fish to fly in the sky, saying that it is birds' and fish problem, we don't have enough knowledge to understand how you will do that, but it is not our job, our job is to tell you what to do, but how to do is your problem..
Do you see what resources will be needed, and how it can be reorganized in order to comply to new legislations?
I don't. If to reorganize DNS system by hierarchical principle, it will be still DNS system, unless software on all computers in the world will be replaced.
The main problem is, in order for this legislation to work the entire Internet has to be reorganized, in it's foundation that was proposed by DARPA as self-healing network organized by totally independent nodes. It was organized to sustain nuclear war. The idea of centralization in such case would be killing. Now when Internet is up and running, Hollywood that don't understand how it works requested simply to control it. It is not possible, unless everything will be reorganized, instead of self-healing, self-sustaining unbreakable network, into a hierarchical structure.
When experts tried to explain to congressmen details, the answer was simple, like, "We are not hackers and don't want to know how it works, it is your business". Similarly, to create new law for birds to fly under water, and does not matter how they would do that. Or, to demand from fish to fly in the sky, saying that it is birds' and fish problem, we don't have enough knowledge to understand how you will do that, but it is not our job, our job is to tell you what to do, but how to do is your problem..
Do you see what resources will be needed, and how it can be reorganized in order to comply to new legislations?
I don't. If to reorganize DNS system by hierarchical principle, it will be still DNS system, unless software on all computers in the world will be replaced.
Difficult issues, difficult technology. Long winded comment.
Here is the real catch-22. If the Web existed within the confines of one sovereignty, their normal IP laws and tort processes could resolve the problems. However, one nations desire to protect IP may be the next's strategic advantage. Pandora's box is indeed open.
There are various tagging technologies, but to use them in a global environment would require a global PKI system at levels as we have seen are not sustainable. Even if one could manage an international tagging system, then you have several more problems. Lost keys and the inability to share in the intellectual arena as anything considered IP would be tagged. No one is willing to put up the cost. It would create a serious detriment to what the internet was designed to do, and what it can do now. Just think of the traffic that tagging every tweet would cause?
I would like to see international cooperation similar to our post office laws that addresses out right fraud and serious criminal activity. Unfortunately, as the EU is learning really fast, this means giving up some sovereignty. First world is not willing, after all we are the bullies. Third world won't as they are trying to establish their position. Everyone in the middle is getting stepped on anyway. Unfair now, it would be more unfair if we tried.
So, let's look at the strengths and see if we can beat the game. Let's split the problem in two. Theft and sharing of protected entertainment. Hollywood. Theft of corporate and personal IP. ID theft, technology etc.
For the first, I offer the concept of rapid deployment of expendable content. Make your content pay off very quickly and don't worry about the tail. Make your content so cheap, and your legal distribution so easy, the incentive is not there to bypass it. Look what has happened with 99 cent music! I would rather collect a dollar from a million people that ten from a thousand and spend all the profits trying to stop the rest of the million who stole it.
DNS is another rat's nest. Sorry to say, it ran better when a few geeks at Stanford just took care of it. If I had an answer, I would share it.
The second problem is actually easier to manage. My profession has to get off their lazy tails and do their job protecting their company asserts. The worlds is being held ransom by a bunch of half-brain script kiddies because the professionals are not. This would reduce the problem to a scope where existing international IP laws could manage it. China, yes even the great master of organized IP theft, has started to realize this is not sustainable. If they steal us into poverty, we won't have any money to buy their products.
Listing rat's nests, every nation is having the same issues with putting vital infrastructure in the web and as we have seen, it is almost impossible to protect. As shown in the Middle East, even air-gaps do not make you totally safe. So no easy or legal solution there. Just hard work.
Some hold "the cloud" up as a technical solution. Sorry. It has the advantage of FINALLY allowing mere intelligent mortals to access resources via appliance type devices. You should not have to be a computer scientist just to keep a PC going. I am, and some times I can't. What we can do maybe, is hold application distributors ( iStore and the like) liable for gross negligence when distributing malware. (Android, take note, at least Apple tries). Right now, the end user has no rights at all. I think this is an opportunity for tort law under the suitability for use clause.
If we were all as noble as Gandhi, we would not have this problem. Were not. We are only normal greedy people. I think we will work this all out. It takes time. A lot of loss will incur. A lot of that loss was only there to be made due to the advantages of the internet in the first place. I suggest companies quit paying the legal department as much and pay more security engineers and content producers. The goal is to make more money. If you can accept the leakage and produce far more, the total is still better.
Wow, an e-mail says I just won the lottery, all I have to do is give them my bank account. Funny, I didn't enter any lottery
Here is the real catch-22. If the Web existed within the confines of one sovereignty, their normal IP laws and tort processes could resolve the problems. However, one nations desire to protect IP may be the next's strategic advantage. Pandora's box is indeed open.
There are various tagging technologies, but to use them in a global environment would require a global PKI system at levels as we have seen are not sustainable. Even if one could manage an international tagging system, then you have several more problems. Lost keys and the inability to share in the intellectual arena as anything considered IP would be tagged. No one is willing to put up the cost. It would create a serious detriment to what the internet was designed to do, and what it can do now. Just think of the traffic that tagging every tweet would cause?
I would like to see international cooperation similar to our post office laws that addresses out right fraud and serious criminal activity. Unfortunately, as the EU is learning really fast, this means giving up some sovereignty. First world is not willing, after all we are the bullies. Third world won't as they are trying to establish their position. Everyone in the middle is getting stepped on anyway. Unfair now, it would be more unfair if we tried.
So, let's look at the strengths and see if we can beat the game. Let's split the problem in two. Theft and sharing of protected entertainment. Hollywood. Theft of corporate and personal IP. ID theft, technology etc.
For the first, I offer the concept of rapid deployment of expendable content. Make your content pay off very quickly and don't worry about the tail. Make your content so cheap, and your legal distribution so easy, the incentive is not there to bypass it. Look what has happened with 99 cent music! I would rather collect a dollar from a million people that ten from a thousand and spend all the profits trying to stop the rest of the million who stole it.
DNS is another rat's nest. Sorry to say, it ran better when a few geeks at Stanford just took care of it. If I had an answer, I would share it.
The second problem is actually easier to manage. My profession has to get off their lazy tails and do their job protecting their company asserts. The worlds is being held ransom by a bunch of half-brain script kiddies because the professionals are not. This would reduce the problem to a scope where existing international IP laws could manage it. China, yes even the great master of organized IP theft, has started to realize this is not sustainable. If they steal us into poverty, we won't have any money to buy their products.
Listing rat's nests, every nation is having the same issues with putting vital infrastructure in the web and as we have seen, it is almost impossible to protect. As shown in the Middle East, even air-gaps do not make you totally safe. So no easy or legal solution there. Just hard work.
Some hold "the cloud" up as a technical solution. Sorry. It has the advantage of FINALLY allowing mere intelligent mortals to access resources via appliance type devices. You should not have to be a computer scientist just to keep a PC going. I am, and some times I can't. What we can do maybe, is hold application distributors ( iStore and the like) liable for gross negligence when distributing malware. (Android, take note, at least Apple tries). Right now, the end user has no rights at all. I think this is an opportunity for tort law under the suitability for use clause.
If we were all as noble as Gandhi, we would not have this problem. Were not. We are only normal greedy people. I think we will work this all out. It takes time. A lot of loss will incur. A lot of that loss was only there to be made due to the advantages of the internet in the first place. I suggest companies quit paying the legal department as much and pay more security engineers and content producers. The goal is to make more money. If you can accept the leakage and produce far more, the total is still better.
Wow, an e-mail says I just won the lottery, all I have to do is give them my bank account. Funny, I didn't enter any lottery
this may be what the 'cloud' is geared for ...
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
cloud free -
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
That nodal structure looks very much like brain-matter neuron structures..?????
That being the case, If the "net" ever became self-aware we soon might be under the auspices of the "Great Almighty"............& I'm not talking about any ancient Deities......something more modern.
______________________________________________________Rick..........
That being the case, If the "net" ever became self-aware we soon might be under the auspices of the "Great Almighty"............& I'm not talking about any ancient Deities......something more modern.
______________________________________________________Rick..........
No, there is no technical problem. Some countries already severely restrict the content available to their citizens, and have no difficulty doing so.
Closer to home, you might like to look at the USA's "War on gambling". Websites have been blocked, people have been sent to prison.
IMHO, the proposed legislation would likely make corporate abuse of "the system" easier, nastier and more common, without having much of an effect on real piracy. For those who want to, it's possible to work around things like domain name seizure and DNS blacklisting.
There are already freely available plugins for Firefox to help with this sort of thing. Of course if the new legislation is passed, it would be a criminal offense for me to name them here.
Well, today's not a good day to look anything up on Wikipedia, but I found an interesting perspective here:
Also lots of good info on the Electronic Frontier Foundation site.
cDc communications seems surprisingly quiet, though
Last edited:
I think Wavebourn's opening post sums it up. You can't have an open network with restrictions. Politicians hate being out of control of something. Any levers which can stop IP theft can also stop freedom. The real answer is to go for the sites putting up the infringeing content, but they will be off-shore. Reducing the price of legitimate copies may help.
Another solution is to try and educate people about property rights. Stealing IP is now socially accepted behaviour by anyone under about 40 in most countries, and anyone of any age in some countries.
Many years ago in Britain we had a big problem with drink-driving. We didn't solve it by banning alcohol, or banning driving. We solved it by catching the drink-drivers, and making it a socially unacceptable thing to do (in most places).
Another solution is to try and educate people about property rights. Stealing IP is now socially accepted behaviour by anyone under about 40 in most countries, and anyone of any age in some countries.
Many years ago in Britain we had a big problem with drink-driving. We didn't solve it by banning alcohol, or banning driving. We solved it by catching the drink-drivers, and making it a socially unacceptable thing to do (in most places).
it is hopeless, those who seek to control will always seek to control. those who do not wish to be controlled will always be their enemies. thus the struggle is framed. it matters NOT if one "side" or the other is more correct or not.
this is a question more akin to "free speech" and "banning books". while on one hand there are "profits" being "lost" by the alleged "theft" of IP, on the other hand billions of $$ are being made via the same technology. this is a shift. those whose interests are entrenched in the old past ways of doing things always resist and fight the newer ways. this is especially true of those who are unable to directly benefit and capitalize on the new ways.
also there are the desires of many to control political discourse, information and change.
communication is power, always has been, always will be. controlling the channels of communication is one major way that the masses are kept in line, no matter where in the world you are.
this is a serious and dangerous time, as the freedom of communication that has been enjoyed for some time is being threatened, and I fear most of those freedoms will be lost shortly.
this renaissance will be seen as having been short-lived...
_-_-bear
this is a question more akin to "free speech" and "banning books". while on one hand there are "profits" being "lost" by the alleged "theft" of IP, on the other hand billions of $$ are being made via the same technology. this is a shift. those whose interests are entrenched in the old past ways of doing things always resist and fight the newer ways. this is especially true of those who are unable to directly benefit and capitalize on the new ways.
also there are the desires of many to control political discourse, information and change.
communication is power, always has been, always will be. controlling the channels of communication is one major way that the masses are kept in line, no matter where in the world you are.
this is a serious and dangerous time, as the freedom of communication that has been enjoyed for some time is being threatened, and I fear most of those freedoms will be lost shortly.
this renaissance will be seen as having been short-lived...
_-_-bear
I think wikipedia has shown the way.
All it will take is some rather large companies to stand up & withdraw their services for 24 hours and the powers that be (and want to be in Hollywoods case) may take notice.
Maybe a telecoms provider - who feels it is unfair for them to be penalised because someone on their network hosts 'illegal' date - just closes the network for an hour or so - $billions of work hours lost that are easily equal to the what Hollywood 'thinks' they are losing out on
All it will take is some rather large companies to stand up & withdraw their services for 24 hours and the powers that be (and want to be in Hollywoods case) may take notice.
Maybe a telecoms provider - who feels it is unfair for them to be penalised because someone on their network hosts 'illegal' date - just closes the network for an hour or so - $billions of work hours lost that are easily equal to the what Hollywood 'thinks' they are losing out on
Member
Joined 2009
Hummm...
The internet being damaged by the human virus....where is the anitvirus program..cyberdyne systems ...
Todays science fiction is tomorrows science fact...
Regards
M. Gregg
Mine is. Hasn't helped the Web one bit.
LOL I know I still can't post in my perpetual post..LMAO
Regards
M. Gregg
Free (as in uncensored) information distribution keeps them honest.....but in reality no politician can be 'honest' because in order to get anything done requires compromise of the principles they were elected to uphold. Where moderation is required is in the liable slander and false accusations of companies and to an extent of individuals, IMO.
Packets inspecting firewalls on ISP side can block any traffic wisely. Also there are few root DNS servers the rest are cashing ones. So technically speaking any site or content can be blocked. At what cost is another question.
Honestly I cannot see how Hollywood is going to take over At&t and other ISPs business. Who wish to pay for blocked Internet access?
Packets inspecting firewalls on ISP side can block any traffic wisely. Also there are few root DNS servers the rest are cashing ones. So technically speaking any site or content can be blocked. At what cost is another question.
Honestly I cannot see how Hollywood is going to take over At&t and other ISPs business. Who wish to pay for blocked Internet access?
I see what you mean, but it is different from SORM. Requires reorganization of Internet, even if SORM-like devices need to be installed it means enormous resources required, with enormous control traffic. In Russia they did that at the beginning, and no ISP could get a license without agreement in participation in SORM, and without such devices installed, purpose of which is to be used only when protection and investigation are needed: no value in such devices when they don't leave bandwidth for Internet itself. Here it would require more: extensive filtering by each bit in the address. I don't think that such system with such massive control resources can be usable. Total restructuring is needed. Starting from International Standards instead of RFCs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.