Saving the Internet

Forget the next worm attack. Worry about this from today's New York Times:

As America's 156 million Internet users brace for the next round of digital vandalism, some experts say that it is time for the government to bolster a basic sense of stability in cyberspace that societies expect from their critical public resources.

"The government has essentially relied on the voluntary efforts of industry both to make less-buggy software and make systems more resilient," says Michael A. Vatis, former director of the National Infrastructure Protection Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "What we're seeing is that those voluntary efforts are insufficient, and the repercussions are vast."

Proposals for government action being discussed by policy makers and computer security experts include strengthening the Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity division and offering tax incentives to businesses for spending on security. Another proposal would require public companies to disclose potential computer security risks in Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Comments

[JohnG]

The New York Times piece says that the Internet has become a vital part of commerce and culture but is still a free-for-all.

What it should say is that the Internet has become a vital part of commerce and culture because it is a free-for-all.

But the disciples of government regulation will never be able to see it. There is something in their makeup that prevents them from understanding how the world really works.

This is the way it always goes. Stuff will develop unencumbered. It will flourish on the free market. People will embrace it. But there's some threshold that gets crossed at some point, after some amount of time, where it becomes a Thing -- and once it becomes a Thing, those with a regulator impulse step in to take charge.

A century ago, somebody was putting pieces of metal together into a certain configuration. Other people liked these configurations of metal, and purchased them. But at some point, these cars became a Thing -- and along came mandatory driver licensing, registration, etc.

And here is yet another case where government would like to transform a right into a privilege.

There is a role for government in the Internet: staying out. The courts can do their job when called upon -- with copyright infringement, for instance, or other instances where private parties think their rights have been compromised. But that passive role is the only proper one.

[John Avelis Jr.]

Not for nothing did someone (Shakespeare, it's close enough) say "Security is the chief ill of mankind." Now we're nigh on the second anniversary of the Security Age, heading into the New Epoch of Paranoia.
Yeah, let the government take charge of making the Internet a safe & secure place. That's what we need in this country: more people thinking with their large intestines. Think about the wonderful job government is now doing of making a hash of public education. Now, imagine what they'll do to the Internet. Any questions?

[Joanne McNeil]

Every five or so weeks there is a new editorial about cybersecurity and the threat of critical infrastructure, but most experts say such worries are bunk. There are about 12 different federal offices set up to correct the problem -- at least one for each intelligence office. Like most problems of intelligence, the offices are not allowed to share information with each other and often work redundantly.
Here's what Wired said of NIPC a few years ago: http://computers.sympatico.ca/news/wired/stories/0,1856,50,00/0,1572,44019-50,00.html

"Instead of becoming a highly-sensitive nerve center that responds to computer intrusions, congressional investigators have concluded that the NIPC has turned into a federal backwater that is surprisingly ineffective in pursing malicious hackers or devising a plan to protect electronic infrastructures."

[Neb Okla]

Andy said "Also, some people don't have the resources to properly protect themselves. Some people might not be able to afford virus protection and might not have the luxury of visiting the Microsoft Update site or the time to screen their emails."

One of the downloads from the MS Update site is an automatic updte utility. It takes under a minute to set this up. And you can't convince me that people spending $1000 on computers can't afford $20 AntiVirus software (most computers come with it for free). Also, most AV software now removes viruses from emails.

So the only people who can't maintain secure PC's are the ones who "don't have time to wind their watch" or are "too sick to go to the doctor".

Personally I enjoy virus outbreaks because they don't affect people who perform basic PC maintenance. They only hit the people and companies who, through their arrogant "MS should wipe for me" attitude deserve it most.

Next I suppose you'll want me to cry for people who engage in risky sexual behavior and contract a bunch of STD's.

[Madog]

You know, I bet if Microsoft build an antibirus suite into windows everyone would yell unfair and sue. But propose that the government regulate the internet and require every computer to have a firewall and antivirus software and those same people do nothing but grin.

[Neb Okla]

I know people who get routine oil changes, buy gas every week, pay for tires, and have routine auto maintenance done on their cars.

Then you look at their computer and it hasn't been touched since they bought it.

Buying a computer isn't a one time thing. It's an ongoing expense - just like buying a car. And if you don't keep up with maintenance, it's going to have problems - just like a car would.

[Mo]

Madog,
You're correct. I believe MS isn't allowed to bundle a basic anti-virus package into their OS because it would be bundling and taking unfair advantage of their dominant market position. This is a complete load of crap because anti-virus software is absolutely vital. XP has a built in firewall (but I don't like/trust it).

I would probably stay away from the MS built in antivirus software, but you can imagine the cries of 'unfair' from Symantec and the like if MS tried to put one in. Methinks they'll have to soon with all of these worms and the associated bad press.

[Andrew Lynch]

What do you mean nobody owns the Internet? Two words: Al Gore. Duh. Ok, that's three words, but I'm so angry about this Times article and the casual totalitarian assumptions it makes that I can only be silly, lest I go mad. Is there a Department of Madness Management, yet? Won't someone please create one?

[thoreau]

Neb Okla-

You quoted Andy's statement about some people not being able to afford PC maintenance. You responded to him in a manner suggesting you took him seriously. I thought he was pretty clearly being sarcastic, judging from the statement:

"Perhaps more importantly, the whole idea of personal virus protection is culturally biased. Certain groups of people, due to their culture, don't think in your "white man's" terms..."

[TomD]

"...some experts say that it is time for the government to bolster a basic sense of stability in cyberspace that societies expect from their critical public resources."

Yeah, I wish the Web could be more like the Post Office.

[nm156]

Yeah, getting the government involved will make things better. Once you let that camel's nose under the tent flap, watch out.

[Grant Gould]

This is a democracy, and as such, it is up to the choice of citizens like us to choose between an internet whose content is regulated by John Ashcroft or Joe Lieberman.
--G

[Plutarck]

"Once you let that camel's nose under the tent flap, watch out."

*giggles hysterically*

Sorry, I'm in a silly mood all of a sudden 😉

[Brian J.]

As America's 156 million Internet users brace for the next round of digital vandalism, some experts say that it is time for the government to bolster a basic sense of stability in N that societies expect from their critical public resources.

What happens when N="press" and the answer is nationalize newspaper corporations since the television news media and printed media are critical public resources?

Does the New York Times's theory change?

[Plutarck]

The internet is a public resource?

Funny, when did this happen? I thought the only public resource much involved in the internet was only some of the transmission lines - almost everything else is privately owned by a multitude of parties all over the world. The Internet is not a publicly owned good of the United States of America - it isn't even wholey privately owned by it's citizens.

Where do people get this shit?

[Xmas]

The Internet is a public resource because DARPA paid BBN to develop a fault resistant data network for the military.

🙂

Although, I'm not sure what the governments role was in the development of high-speed network switching, high-capacity mail systems, fiber-optic cable layouts and modem and DSL development.

[Plutarck]

I don't think the government got around to patenting The Internet, so hah!

How ironic 😀

[MJ]

Exactly on what basis does the esteemed Mr. Vatis assume that the government would produce less buggy software and more resilent systems? As well as his assumption that the government refrains from doing these things apparently out of its overwhelming patience for the bumbling private sector?

Please, maybe, just maybe, it is because such things are easier said than done?

[Joe]

Of course this is no surprise. We all knew it was only a matter of time before the busybodies decided to meddle once again. Obviously this is a bad idea. I personally haven't had any problems with these virus attacks simply because I am always downloading updates for Windows as soon as they become available. Taking a little personal responsibility is hard to imagine, I suppose, and anything like what is being proposed will simply be another nanny state activity that gives people a false sense of security.

[Robert Nabors]

The government is completely inept.

Now they want to play with our computers?

I've seen how that went. Go to http://www.americasarmy.com to see a videogame made by our government. However, you'll only be able to see America's Army: Operations. There was a second game planned, America's Army: Soldiers, more of a RPG type game for those of us who like them more than FPS games, but - after the developers cried "It'll be out when it's ready - we're too stupid to give even a guess at an ETA" now the cries are "We've decided to integrate parts of the Soldiers concept into Operations."

Kinda like canceling Concorde service - but don't worry - the 747 will give out some of the same services.

Case in point - if the Government can't even make a game correctly, on time, and professionally, do we really want to trust them with the internet itself?

-Robert

[Andy]

Joe, but what about the children? They're not capable of properly protecting themselves from viruses. Do you want our children's computers to be infected? NO. They must be protected.

Also, some people don't have the resources to properly protect themselves. Some people might not be able to afford virus protection and might not have the luxury of visiting the Microsoft Update site or the time to screen their emails. Perhaps more importantly, the whole idea of personal virus protection is culturally biased. Certain groups of people, due to their culture, don't think in your "white man's" terms and you're racist to think that all groups have equal cultural access to virus protection.

In summary, if you don't want the internet regulated by the avuncular hand of Uncle Sam, then you don't care about children, the poor, the intellectually challenged, and you are a racist!

[Richard]

Government smovernment...when was the last time government intervention ever produced an outcome remotely successful...BCCI...SEC...Education...Social Security...you name it...government can break it. Anyone remember the government's made rush to solve the Y2K crisis that they knew about since the Nixon Administration? That dilemma was solved with the enthusiasm of a frat-kid prepping for finals...Led to a 2-year cram session involving massive waste of money for others to ultimately fix the government's problem.

[thoreau]

The only way this will happen is if there are companies that benefit from it. So often, gov't regulation is a means for one company with good connections to make life harder for another.

Obviously, in the long-run, this type of predatory regulation is bad for any honest capitalist, because he could easily find himself on the receiving end. However, the types of people who pursue this type of regulation aren't businessmen cut from the mold of Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart (it's been a while since I read _Atlas Shrugged_, so pardon me if I got the names wrong). They're parasites who enter the private sector in hopes that it will become the "private sector" (quotation marks indicating that it's no longer what it pretends to be).

So, who would benefit from heavier gov't regulation of the internet? If we answer that question then we know whom we should worry about.

[Jake]

Okay, the goverment developed the beginning of the Internet thru DARPA and our tax $'s went to it. Fine. Then DARPA allowed Universities to connect to the network. Again, fine. And then Clinton sold off the backbone of the internet to a few large telecom companies, which sold access to ISP's, who then resold the access and webspace to the citizen's.

I think that prior to all that when DARPA and the universities had more control over the backbone that the goverment should have, at that time, spent the money and resources to do then what they want to do now. They gave up control, right or wrong, why is it that we have suffer for their ignorance?

First it was the CDA, then the CDA II, and each time the law of the land - the Supreme Court - has stated that the internet has become apart of the public domain and can not be regulated by the goverment.

So now their concerned about security. Yeah right, we have less security, if not the same pre-9/11 security. Department of Homeland Security has already put Air Marshalls on planes and then taken a lot of them away, citing tighter security. Yet, it is just as easy to do what those terrorists did back in 9/11 since most security measures have gotten rid of children's toys from boarding. The terrorists used common item's and tools and there is nothing that say that they won't try again with weapons fashioned from items already on the plane.

I know that that may sound alarmist and that's not what I'm trying to be but these are the facts that have already been reported, at least here @ reason.com, and I'm tired of the goverment continually try to take away our civil liberties in the name of security.

The Clinton Administration has done more to erode civil liberties in eight years but it appears that the Bush Administration is at least trying to do more in less time.

[David2]

Hate to break it to you Jake, but the process of getting the government out of the DARPA buinsess started in 1988, during Reagan's ending term and into Bush Senior's tenure. Cliton did nothing to create the Internet, never mind secure it, only ride the wave as it was building.

Other than that, though, you're pretty much right on the money.

[the drummer]

the drummer

AMERICA, POST-KING GEORGE:

# First they came for your Independence -- (States Rights.)

# Then they came for your Correspondence -- (Post Office)

# Then they came for your businesses -- (Anti-Trust)

# Then the parasitic vine crept up further, and they came for your wallet -- (The 16th "Amendment")

# Next, they came for your dignity -- (Social Security)

# Then they came for Children's Minds -- ("Education")

# Then the parasitic vine crept even further up, as they came for your wallet some more -- (Welfare Programs, Social Programs.)

# Then they came for your Children themselves -- (Fill in the blank)

# Then they came for your Mobility -- (Cars, SUV, Gasoline Taxes)

# Then they came for your Body -- (Nationalized Healthcare attempts)

# Then they came for your Privacy -- (PATRIOT)

# Now they're coming for your Mind, your Spirit, and the last vesitiges of any Freedom we once might have had.

And the noose is tightening ...

FOR THOSE WHO FORGOT -- WHAT WAS IT AGAIN THAT WAS AMERICA'S GRIPE PRE-KING GEORGE?

[Jennifer]

Gee, the drummer sure paints an ominous picture! Isn't there something we can do to stem this dread advance?

[nm156]

Yes, Jennifer there is. Keep doing what you're doing. Enjoy your life, and when you get the chance, give the finger to the government. Or better yet, ignore them. They hate to feel irrelevant. It just kills them. Why do you think the internet makes them freak? Precisely because it is the one thing that they CANNOT control.

[Neb Okla]

drummer (like most Americans) conveniently ignores the infringements of our government against the Second Amendment (you know, the one that ensures the first?).

[Madog]

Robert, be fair, plenty of private game companies end up dropping development or combining elements of games. Ever heard of Simsville. There was a big deal about it, it was suppost to be the next step between The Sims and SimCity, there was a lot of coverage of it, ads, etc. Never got developed, but some of its elements were incorprated into Sims Online and SimCity 4.

[D. Harry]

Most Americans ignore such "infringements" because they take that right as a given. They know that any such "infringement" will require a pry bar to ultimately loosen the grip of American fingers from around their weapons.

[JB]

I don't know, maybe we can fix the power grid first, or wait, perhaps we could make it so people who don't bother to maintain their cars never have another flat tire.
But seriously, I'm not sure the government should fix everything. Fear drives our economy. If they do that we might never recover.

[Rick Barton]

Wanna stay cyber-free? Contact your congress person and senatores and tell them you don't want to trade any internet freedom for government security. Then point out that the governments track record in such matters is pretty abysmal anyway. This is serious. Fight Back!

[Neb Okla]

thoreau, this doesn't make the people I know any less perplexing.

[W. Wallace]

Everyone dies. But few really live.

[SteveInClearwater]

The comments above about the gubmint being afraid of 'losing control' also applies to the major media outlets.

Ties in with my OReilly related post in other Topic, wherein I mention how he is ill prepared for the Internet and all it entails.

In fact, he leads charge of "...most everything you see on the Internet is fiction or distorted..."

Kinda like Larry King or other 'opinion-makers' who affect the curmudgeous attitude..."I love my Royal typewriter and won't get a keyboard and screen...Who needs it??" If "I" don't need it, why should you?

Good news...Stupid Old White Men die at rate of over 5,000 daily in U.S. alone. Leaving more in the hands of us Not Quite As Stupid Not Quite As Old White Men (and all my close friends of all ages, races and levels of stupid of course)

[peace]

yeah you all need to get a life...dont worry about it...it will sort itself out!!GOD....life is to short people!