"Future of the Internet" now as free PDF download

[Patricia]

There is also an html version, downloadable chapter by chapter.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I think Zittrain's point is that not enough of intelligence was applied in the initial designing of this particular tool... much like creating a saw without a handle. We're all suffering from shredded hands now, and we need to take corrective action before we start losing fingers...

In what way? A lot of very clever thought went into the fundamental principles and the problems we see now with companies trying to destroy the net neutrality for example is a result of not respecting the fundamental principles.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

In what way? A lot of very clever thought went into the fundamental principles and the problems we see now with companies trying to destroy the net neutrality for example is a result of not respecting the fundamental principles.

Yes, a lot of thought went into the principles of effective communication between users. However, on the subject of security or protection against hackers, for instance, or viruses, the prevailing attitude of the original web designers was, "Ah, no one would want to use the web to hurt another user, so who needs protection?"

As we've all seen, that attitude turned out to be a bit naive, though understandably, as the original designers had no idea the web would be utilized as it has been. But if they had built-in even modest security protocols, many of the problems we deal with today, related to viruses, hackers, botnets, etc, could have been easily avoided. And, I think, much of the problems related to intellectual property and copyright issues would also be less of an issue than they are today.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, a lot of thought went into the principles of effective communication between users. However, on the subject of security or protection against hackers, for instance, or viruses, the prevailing attitude of the original web designers was, "Ah, no one would want to use the web to hurt another user, so who needs protection?"

As we've all seen, that attitude turned out to be a bit naive, though understandably, as the original designers had no idea the web would be utilized as it has been. But if they had built-in even modest security protocols, many of the problems we deal with today, related to viruses, hackers, botnets, etc, could have been easily avoided. And, I think, much of the problems related to intellectual property and copyright issues would also be less of an issue than they are today.

I was referring to the very clever principle to have a dumb neutral net and place the smartness in the equipment that connects to the net. That is the principle that have stimulated innovation. Your approach would have lead to a totally different deveopment and would not have been innovation friendly.

The realized that the could not predict how the net would be used so they took that into account in the design.

[Greg Anos]

(Sets up the soap box...Climbs on it. (Ow, my hips!) Picks up megaphone...(Testing....Testing...) Dodges tomato....)


Finished the book. Waaay too long winded. Should have been 100 pages shorter.

On the first part - We got to where we are (malware, viruses, zombies) because most end unit devices were set-up to allow automated remote programs to run on end unit devices. Ladies, Gentlemen, and Stooges, why do you think Java exists!!! It's a variant of C designed explicitly for running programs on a remote machine!!! And everybody thought that it was GOOD! Offload the processing onto the <other> machine. Save money and bandwidth. Steal the machine! (Or at least part of it.) It's OK when the results are what you want, a horror story when it's not. The method is the same.

The answer - spike off remote program processing capability, or at least require a manual override to allow any remote program to run, and/or be saved. Yes, Virginia, it can be done without turning every machine into a tethered machine. A tethered machine is a completely different animal. The problem is three-fold. One - It'll use a lot more bandwidth (you want dancing palm trees on your web site? You'll have to sent each change of movement to the receiving machine. No remote program to run creating the waving palm trees on the receiving machine.) Two - It'll take a lot more processing capability at the host end (to create the waving palm tree image.) And Three - no more shoving your choices down other people's machines - Good or Bad!!! That's unforgivable! It doesn't matter whether it's Big Brother or Little Brother or the Mafia, everybody wants to use other people for their own benefit. How dare you stand in their way! So nobody will change the system to solve the problem. (Dodges three tomatoes and a cabbage.)

As to the second part - general survelliance - The only way it's going away is if the technology is totally suppressed. And that's not going to happen. The one good thing I can say about it is that it won't be limited to the main power blocs, a la 1984. The little people can spy right back. This in itself puts limits on government reach, but at a high social price. Otherwise, all I can say is - be seeing ya.

Brickbat away...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

I was referring to the very clever principle to have a dumb neutral net and place the smartness in the equipment that connects to the net. That is the principle that have stimulated innovation. Your approach would have lead to a totally different deveopment and would not have been innovation friendly.

True, the method the author suggests would have led to the development of internet and computing "appliances," limited-customization boxes (like electric typewriters, cable boxes, playstation, etc) that would do specific tasks, and be more secure from outside attack and tampering, giving us a web less prone to virus attacks and hacking.

Development would have still happened, assuredly much more slowly... however, it might have been more orderly as well. But all of that is speculation at this point.

Originally Posted by tompe

The realized that the could not predict how the net would be used so they took that into account in the design.

It wasn't so much an effort to leave it simple, so others could develop over it... but of making it simple, because that's all the original designers needed, and they weren't worried about what others would develop over it. This is what the book maintains our security, hacking and virus problems are a result of: Lack of security planning, or more accurately, avoidance of security planning due to naive assumptions about human nature.

(Not finished the book yet, so I won't go into Zittrain's "solutions" yet.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well, I finished the book late on Friday, so here's my comment:

Although the book nicely (if verbosely) describes the current situation regarding internet lack of security, and the ways in which this will likely lead to a crippled internet in the future... I was disappointed by the fact that the book offers no real solutions to the problem. Instead of giving us ideas or other ways to stop the future train wreck that is today's internet, Zittrain concludes with a description of the potential of Nicolas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, and suggests that we should let these appropriately-empowered children fix the internet for us.

This, despite the fact that Zittrain describes in multiple places the human capacity to duck responsibility, misbehave and procrastinate, instead of fixing the problems at hand. Yet he assumes the children from the Third World will step forward and fix our mess with creative programming and an idealistic desire for good.

That, and the image on the cover, serves to remind me of a commercial depicting an adult who represents wasteful and polluting humanity, standing on the railroad tracks as the train named Disaster plows down on him, whereupon he steps aside to avoid the train... and we finally see a child standing there behind him, still on the tracks, sadly waiting for the train to run her down.

Surprisingly, Zittrain discusses the web's lack of security, and even indicates in places where some establishment of security in the early days of the internet could have prevented viruses, denial-of-service attacks, hacks, ID theft, botnets, and threats to national security. Yet he fails to actually recommend specific applications of security measures to the web, as if the very words are too heinous to utter.

Overall, a book that says, very clearly, "Yes, we have a problem"... then finishes with a rendition of "I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way..."

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I was disappointed by the fact that the book offers no real solutions to the problem.

Because there are no real solutions. The internet is global. Any solution would be at a federal level... it would cause thousands of pages of regulations and tons on new taxes to administer it. No... this is something that needs to be resolved by the business involved that use the internet for commerce.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

No... this is something that needs to be resolved by the business involved that use the internet for commerce.

Considering the "businesses involved" that use the internet for commerce all have their own agendas, we can't depend on them to resolve those problems. Their "resolutions" have so far given us multiple incompatible formats, draconian DRM, exorbitant pricing and more reasons for people to resort to piracy than we can collectively count.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, a lot of thought went into the principles of effective communication between users. However, on the subject of security or protection against hackers, for instance, or viruses, the prevailing attitude of the original web designers was, "Ah, no one would want to use the web to hurt another user, so who needs protection?"

As we've all seen, that attitude turned out to be a bit naive, though understandably, as the original designers had no idea the web would be utilized as it has been. But if they had built-in even modest security protocols, many of the problems we deal with today, related to viruses, hackers, botnets, etc, could have been easily avoided. And, I think, much of the problems related to intellectual property and copyright issues would also be less of an issue than they are today.

Bear in mind where the Internet we use today began: as ARPANET, an project funded by the US government to develop a computer network that could suffer damage and still function, by automatically routing around failed nodes. This was back in the days when people still expected a possible nuclear dustup, with sites going off the air because they no longer existed.

Early manifestations like Usenet suffered growing pains, because of an implicit assumption that everyone participating had a right to be there and knew how to behave. Back in the days when Usenet sites were mostly universities and the participants mostly professors and grad students, that was a reasonably assumption. As access expanded, it became less reasonable.

Newsgroups still exist, but many have migrated to private servers devoted to particular interests where controls can be applied.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Had the folks involved in designing what became the Internet known the manner in which it would expand and the uses it would be put to, they might have made different decisions.

They didn't, and they didn't. Deal with it.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Hindsight is always 20/20. Had the folks involved in designing what became the Internet known the manner in which it would expand and the uses it would be put to, they might have made different decisions.

They didn't, and they didn't. Deal with it.

It was still a naive assumption. But you're right, that's neither here nor there. What is important is whether the internet will remain as-is, will it be altered to fix some of its problems, or will its users all stop doing bad things and play nicey-nicey on the web... and how that will affect its future.

[DaleDe]

Actually when the Internet was originally designed there was accountability. IP addresses were all fixed and could easily be traced back to a specific machine. Then Microsoft came along and made dynamic addresses which removed accountability.

Dale

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It was still a naive assumption.

It was also an assumption made over 40 years ago. Go ahead. Predict the future. Tell me how often you guess right.

But you're right, that's neither here nor there. What is important is whether the internet will remain as-is, will it be altered to fix some of its problems, or will its users all stop doing bad things and play nicey-nicey on the web... and how that will affect its future.

We don't know, and can't know. We're in the process of finding out.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Actually when the Internet was originally designed there was accountability. IP addresses were all fixed and could easily be traced back to a specific machine. Then Microsoft came along and made dynamic addresses which removed accountability.

Not really.

DHCP provides dynamic addresses, but those addresses are served out of a fixed range allocated to a provider. If you are strongly enough motivated, you can go after the provider to find out which node connected to their service got allocated that particular address.

But that still brings you back to the problem that the Internet is a global entity. Contact the operator of a server in Korea which has nodes generating millions of pieces of spam. Tell me how far you get.

Uniquely identifying the IP address of a malefactor doesn't mean you can do anything about them, save possibly block that particular address.
______
Dennis

[DaleDe]

Actually block an address has good use if they were static.

Dale