Re: FW: Future Internet will have parallel web networks

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Carey Lening (
Date: Fri Feb 18 2000 - 14:57:21 PST

Hash: SHA1

>Pay as you go. Today, attackers can send junk mail free of
>charge-and so they do. Resources that aren't metered tend to be
>wasted. If they had to pay for each thing they sent, there would be
>fewer attacks. It would be harder to steal people's accounts if it
>cost the victims
>money-if such thefts happened a lot, there would quickly be a
>vibrant market for better security products.

- -- Better security can only go so far. This hit me as remarkably
akin to the phreaking phenomena that exists. The more you start
charging, the more individuals start redboxing, etc. Granted, the
phone system enhanced itself but that took ... how long?

I'd hate to think what a mess it would be to charge people --
especially if they were the victim of a spammer.

then there's the whole aspect (perhaps in my idealistic little mind)
that the net is one of the last mediums for truly free informational
spread. You start charging, and the net becomes nothing different
than a commercialized (more than it is now *Shudder*) network of
controlled information. In this case, its controlled by cost instead
of government mandate/regulation.

>Stagger pricing. We can defend the Net without compromising its
>openness and innovation by introducing several classes of service.
>A premium service-a FedEx for the Net-could be built from dedicated
>circuits; a first-class service might be available if you identify
>yourself and pay, for which you'd receive a certain level of
>quality; a free and anonymous bulk service would still be available,
>preserving the innovative frontier of the Net but without delivery

Arguments are forming for this one. I want to argue that distinction
by class is necesarily bad. Looks as tho the bit bitch (me) needs to
do more homework:)

>User ID. For all but bulk service, we will need to identify who is
>doing what; otherwise, how can we do accounting or have rules?
>Without identity, we will have no idea whose packets are flooding
>the server. We will put ownership marks on packets for the same
>reasons we put license plates on cars: to identify owners and
>enforce the
>rules of the road. And for the higher-paid classes of service we
>will need digital driver's licenses to authorize and account for
>access to these resources.

Riiiight. And who keeps track of all this information? Who has
records of my name and id(s), user accounts, etc? More information
== less privacy.

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <>


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 18 2000 - 14:58:26 PST