[FoRK] [External] : Re: Is this a dumb question?
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Thu Mar 18 06:58:49 PDT 2021
I'm guessing it'd be verticalized task specific access rather than
geographic. As there would be so many of them, there'd be no reason to
only think of access at the big granular level.
Different virtualinterwebs could have different terms of service for
using them including use and types of software, apps, content, QoS, etc.
If you don't obey the ToS then your next little emphemeral,
contemporaneously generated crypto access is not renewed.
On 3/10/2021 9:48 PM, Reza B'Far wrote:
> Interesting... so, how would that work in practice from Nation/State
> sponsored attacks? As in where would you restrict things? You would
> restrict, say *.cn?
> I like Network/Hardware solutions over software solutions because they
> erect physical barriers that have a much higher cost. Bunch of dudes in
> a basement can't access satellites or subterranean cables (well, not
> easily and at low cost). I think you could really fight things like
> IP-theft which seem to be a big focus of the recent attacks by just
> "cutting off" the hose.
> On 3/10/21 3:45 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>> I like the idea of having a gTLD that you can only get on with proper,
>> time based, ephemeral certificates.
>> On 3/8/2021 11:21 AM, Reza B'Far wrote:
>>> Reading the details of the Chinese attack... and the Russian attack...
>>> Why would the western world not just go to a model where bit hoses of
>>> internet are closed to those countries? I mean, I understand there is
>>> really no effective way of "cutting off" networks globally... but there
>>> are ways to basically restrict bandwidth and that would really create
>>> problems for those countries. Why would we not do that? Like why would
>>> NATO for example have a wing that can just limit the bandwidth to a
>>> point where it becomes very "expensive" to mount large attacks?
>>> FoRK mailing list
>> FoRK mailing list
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK