|
Phaėton
|
 |
« on: November 05, 2010, 10:46:56 AM » |
|
How long do you think it will be before you cant logon to the internet anonymously
at a wifi spot.
Im speculating that in the next five years youll have to get an 'internet id card' and
this random wifi spot thing will be history.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
When I was your age we used to walk to the TV to change the channel.... _̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡
|
|
|
|
daviator
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2010, 12:05:48 PM » |
|
Hmm, I really don't foresee that changing anytime soon. Why do you think that? Do you mean that the government would require an "internet id card" in the name of homeland security or something?
I can certainly see the homeland security (damn, I hate that phrase) folks trying (their ambitions to control everything being what they are) but I don't see it gaining traction, and groups like the ACLU would fight it tooth and nail.
If the idea is to provide a tool to find terrorists or something, I don't think it would accomplish much; other countries do not have such a requirement, and it would be easy to steal someone's card or perhaps fake one. Mostly it would inconvenience the rest of us (just like most of the other "security theater" stuff.)
On the other hand, when biometric identifying technology becomes so cheap that it's virtually ubiquitous, I can envision having to identify yourself to do much of anything online. This might even be a grassroots movement to kill the spam business and scammers. Perhaps it wouldn't be mandated, but users would have the ability to blanket reject all mail or other contact/interaction if the other party/parties were not reliably bioidentified. Sort of like "anonymous call rejection" but with teeth, in that there wouldn't be any way to spoof your identity. Hell, I might sign up myself, though it begins a slippery slope that could result in easy government tracking of anyone's online activities.
Something that developed as a voluntary system that users choose to be part of would likely not face any of the legal challenges of a mandated system, and over time it could become just as pervasive and effectively mandatory for anyone who wanted to actually communicate with anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perkiset
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2010, 01:16:24 PM » |
|
Egads.
"Logan 5, approach and identify."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
|
|
|
|
daviator
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2010, 01:26:29 PM » |
|
"Logan 5, approach and identify."
Now there's a blast from the past! Only those of our, um, "maturity" will be certain to catch THAT reference!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perkiset
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2010, 01:53:42 PM » |
|
 thought you might remember that one ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
|
|
|
|
nop_90
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2010, 04:56:08 PM » |
|
In China theoretically an id card is required for all internet use. Then again in usa 90%+ of all transactions are registered with the government. In China maybe 60% of transactions are recorded with the government. Big thing is philosophy. In western countries laws are to be followed. In Asia if laws are silly people just do not follow them.
Asia has experimented with dictators etc in that last few years and they have not world too well.
Also usa wants to "convert" people. Asia just wants to do business.
In usa the republican win is a sure sign the political system is broken. Probably they will get more silly.
So who knows what silly laws they will pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kurdt
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2010, 02:11:20 AM » |
|
It depends how country's internet/networking laws are designed. For example in Finland it would be next to impossible to try to force identification when accessing internet. EU has invested so much in privacy laws that they couldn't pass that sort of privacy violation. There isn't really any need for identification in internet access except monitoring because we don't have any protocol in place that would benefit from that kind of identification. However that doesn't mean that people don't identify themselves.. It's not really a hard thing to do to monitor http requests and flag all urls after you first see facebook.com/login in the logs. After login page you'll be transfered straight to your profile so by just making that http request you are already identifying yourself to whoever is watching the logs. Also you leave your MAC address behind when you access public hotspot. Unless you are user like me who have random MAC generator in place, that's totally trackable footprint. All they need to do is to ask popular ISPs that do you have this MAC address using some IP frequently. If that's a private IP, it's pretty likely that it's your home connection.
Most people who don't understand how internet actually work don't have any clue how easy it is to track & find people in the internet. Luckily at least in Finland, authorities have to have a really heavy reason before they can ask personal information from ISP. Heavy reason means like 2 years in prison if convicted and they have to have already evidences that you are guilty of the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
|
|
|
|
Bompa
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2010, 05:00:36 AM » |
|
...though it begins a slippery slope that could result in easy government tracking of anyone's online activities.
I wonder why so many people want privacy, (anonymity), online. They are afraid of being tracked, but, off line they can be tracked constantly. Why does anyone deserve anonymity online? Bompa |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
perkiset
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2010, 10:39:50 AM » |
|
Funny point, the contradiction between on and offline.
Email is the same. People bitch about spam all the time, but don't really complain at all about the dead trees in their mailbox.
Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
|
|
|
|
daviator
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2010, 11:13:15 AM » |
|
Funny point, the contradiction between on and offline.
Email is the same. People bitch about spam all the time, but don't really complain at all about the dead trees in their mailbox.
Weird.
If the volume of junk (paper) mail was anything like the volume of spam, people would care. Conversely, if the volume of spam was like the volume of paper mail, nobody would care. On a particularly heavy mail day, I may sort through and throw away 10 pieces of junk mail. On a heavy spam day, I have had to sort through more than 1,000 spam emails. Even though the spam filter catches most of them, I still have to go through the spam folder and look through them all to catch the occasional legitimate mail that slips through. Even on a more typical day, when I get 50-100 spam messages, it takes more time to deal with them than it does the junk mail. Finally, the junk mail is more likely to be of some minor interest, or be from a company with which I have done business, than the spam. which is always uninteresting and unwelcome. (In fact, I don't even consider email from online merchants I've ordered from and the like to be spam, since I invited it.) So I don't really find there to be a contradiction between the two, with all due respect to our esteemed host. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perkiset
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2010, 11:51:08 AM » |
|
 Please don't feel the need to fluff if you disagree You of all are welcome to express it all here, being, arguably, the reason I do not suck in the technology arena Fair enough, the volumes of the two do not match. But I think that Bompa's point, if ill matched by mine, still stands. Or perhaps it's the very ubiquity of information availability that make physical anonymity so profoundly difficult. Hmmm. So maybe that's it: network unprivacy == physical inability to be untracked anymore. Yeah, that makes sense. People can show up at my door because they use the net to find everything about me. Stupid revelation, that. Should be obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
|
|
|
|
daviator
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2010, 12:15:26 AM » |
|
I wasn't intending to fluff, just being respectful of your opinion, which I value, just not as much as my own. Yes, I suppose that's a big part of it. Loss of privacy online can lead to complete loss of privacy in "real life." Not a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nop_90
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2010, 02:28:35 AM » |
|
It has little to to do with laws. It has to do with whether or not people follow the laws  Finland,Norway and Sweden are the only countries in Europe where feudalism never existed. A variety of factors caused this. Language, culture and environment. Catholism in Philippines despite having the same "laws" as Europe is quite different. There are some theories that think that our thinking can be affected by our "mother tongue". I am inclined to agree somewhat. Language is like the brains OS Usa in most states has a tradition of censorship and intolerance. Communism failed in eastern Europe because most peoples there are anarchists As other parts of the world get a bigger voice, who knows what will happen |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kurdt
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2010, 11:18:48 PM » |
|
Finland,Norway and Sweden are the only countries in Europe where feudalism never existed. A variety of factors caused this. Language, culture and environment. You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland We have had our share of feudalism. Feudalism type of system actually caused our civil war back in the early 1900s. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
|
|
|
|
daviator
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2010, 02:41:49 AM » |
|
Time for me to go pop some popcorn. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
