Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Why would anyone want to do that?

You mean enact real security on the web? Mmm, oh, I dunno... maybe in an attempt to rein in hackers, viruses, identity theft, copyright infringement and piracy, not to mention maintaining national sovereignty, security and economy?

(If, on the other hand, you're wondering why anyone would want to remember Trenian's words... )

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You mean enact real security on the web?

No, I mean remove the anonymity of it all.

History has shown that the internet masses do not want to give up anonymity on the net, or let one person control it... see passport failure. See OpenID's popularity (even though it is far from ubiquitious).

BOb

[pshrynk]

There will eventually be "a new sheriff in town." Stands to reason. A lot of the chaos and anarchy will be pushed aside, mostly by economic presures and then there will be a way to compensate creative people for creating that is once again controlled by singularities. Economics of frontiers.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

No, I mean remove the anonymity of it all.

History has shown that the internet masses do not want to give up anonymity on the net, or let one person control it... see passport failure. See OpenID's popularity (even though it is far from ubiquitious).

Removing anonymity won't be easy.

The origins of the net were in a time when it wasn't a concern. If you were on the net at all, it was assumed you belonged there, and knew how to behave.

Removing anonymity now would require all points of entry to validate the identities of those coming in. I simply don't see that happening.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Removing anonymity won't be easy.

That does not mean that it cannot happen. If governments decide it's necessary, it can be done to a practical extent (IOW, not perfect, but practically effective.)

And actually, I suspect that removing anonymity from the web won't be as hard as you might think. Public protest isn't the same as action, after all, and if the public overall is convinced (by effective PR) that non-anonymity actually protects them, they won't complain much.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Public protest isn't the same as action, after all, and if the public overall is convinced (by effective PR) that non-anonymity actually protects them, they won't complain much.

What I don't understand is how you "think" it protects you? You did read 1984?

You know how they say, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? I think this applies here too.

BOb

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That does not mean that it cannot happen. If governments decide it's necessary, it can be done to a practical extent (IOW, not perfect, but practically effective.)

Which governments? Too many of the problems now originate from areas where the governments in power either don't know, don't care, or get a cut of the take. (Take a look at where the servers are located that most phisihing scams actually point to when you are asked for your private info, and you'll get a short list. Russia, China, Korea, Romania...)

And you can't simply cut them out of the net.

And actually, I suspect that removing anonymity from the web won't be as hard as you might think. Public protest isn't the same as action, after all, and if the public overall is convinced (by effective PR) that non-anonymity actually protects them, they won't complain much.

Maybe.

But effectively removing anonymity means clamping down on tools usable to preserve it. That might just produce more than protest.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

What I don't understand is how you "think" it protects you? You did read 1984?

You know how they say, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? I think this applies here too.

I don't think Steve thinks so. I think he's gauging what others think.

And he may be right. There's a scene in Jules Fieffer's play "Little Murders", where a character is calling for more police, surveillance cameras in the streets ... "This is my freedom I'm talking about!", he wails, with no hint of irony. And from his view, he's right. He's concerned with his freedom to walk down the street without worrying about being mugged, beaten, robbed, and possibly killed.

Freedom from fear is the most beguiling of freedoms, and some folks will give up a lot to get it, because they don't see it as constricting their lives if it happens.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Freedom from fear is the most beguiling of freedoms, and some folks will give up a lot to get it, because they don't see it as constricting their lives if it happens.

That's a rough way of putting it... but from one point of view, essentially correct.

We have already seen examples of technologies that ran rampant upon being introduced, but was later reined in by government regulation when perceived to be in the public or national good: Automobiles/traffic; telephones (and think about that one: The basic backbone of the internet is already on a regulated technology); electricity; banking; etc. And with each one of these technologies, the public has lost a measure of anonymity, privacy, and control, but accepted that in the name of safer streets, lit-up homes, phones that could call anyone in the world, and credit cards usable anywhere we went.

We've also seen governments exercise their sovereign right to secure and protect themselves by regulating international access to many common services, like telephones (same notation as above), transportation, banking, etc.

What makes you think the Internet can't be regulated? There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Internet ending up like that, if governments decide it needs to be done. And you might even learn to like it, when you don't have to sweat viruses, hackers, spam, DDOS attacks, and botnets anymore.

And yes, for the record, I'm saying that I believe that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Though obviously, idealism can greatly suffer upon execution, the potential to solve most of the web's most nagging problems is worth at least the consideration of the idea.

Because, frankly, the whole Anarchy thing we have now isn't solving any of those problems.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Freedom from fear is the most beguiling of freedoms, and some folks will give up a lot to get it, because they don't see it as constricting their lives if it happens.
______
Dennis

Perhaps we should start building all public rest rooms with transparent walls. Perhaps people would then understand why I feel violated knowing my phone can be tapped and my mail can be inspected for no good reason.

BOb

[Greg Anos]

I'll pay graphitti artists to spray paint the loos....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

What makes you think the Internet can't be regulated? There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Internet ending up like that, if governments decide it needs to be done. And you might even learn to like it, when you don't have to sweat viruses, hackers, spam, DDOS attacks, and botnets anymore.

I didn't say it can't be. Only that it would be very difficult.

Sure, a government can impose regulations in what it believes to be in the public interest of its people. Things are more complex when the issues extend across national boundaries.

Consider the countries I pointed at in an earlier post as being the homes of most of the servers used in phishing scams.

Get anyone on Korea in a position to act to care about the volume of spam sent from Korean servers.

Get anyone in Russia to take action on the amount of phishes coming from there.

Get anyone in Nigeria to act against the 419 scammers. That is, if you can find someone in a position to act who isn't getting a cut of the take from the scams.

What do you do? Ban all traffic to and from them? Good luck doing so, even if you try.

For a less extreme action, follow the merry path of the EU as it attempts to forge agreements among member states about things like currency and laws, and the furor over the recent Irish "no" vote.

Effective action requires a lot of governments to agree to take it, after first agreeing on what effective action is. We should live so long.

And yes, for the record, I'm saying that I believe that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Though obviously, idealism can greatly suffer upon execution, the potential to solve most of the web's most nagging problems is worth at least the consideration of the idea.

Because, frankly, the whole Anarchy thing we have now isn't solving any of those problems.

What would you propose?

Anarchy is not a stable system. Order arises sooner of later, in one manner or another. The question is the best source for it to come from. I'm not convinced that source is government. Given some of the measures that might be involved, I'm not sure I trust any government with those powers.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Bob,
The analogy is colorful, but more to the point would be the information about yourself that you've already willingly given up to your ISP, your banker, your credit card company, your pizza delivery guys, your grocery store, your shopping mall, your doctor, your pharmacist, and your local Starbucks. Those guys could write the book on you, right now, to such detail that the entire world will look like glass to you. You might need to come to grips with how transparent those walls already are.

Of course, it's always hard to justify exploratory surveillance, as it's specifically intended to save lives, but by its nature usually suffers many false positives before getting a hit. And the amount of security an individual will accept often is in direct correlation to the losses they've had, or are anticipating. But the alternative... more lives lost, maybe a friend or relative (as those living in Boston, Washington and New York can attest)... usually makes it worth accepting some extra scrutiny.

If that extra security was applied to the internet, hopefully you'd be able to see it in that light, understand the reasoning behind it, and accept it, as I expect most of humanity inevitably would... but if not, you'd always be free to never use the web again. And if security concerns you that much, you should probably follow that up with ditching your credit cards and store cards, going on a cash economy, exercising to keep the doctor away, and making your own pizzas...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Get anyone on Korea in a position to act to care about the volume of spam sent from Korean servers.

Get anyone in Russia to take action on the amount of phishes coming from there.

Get anyone in Nigeria to act against the 419 scammers. That is, if you can find someone in a position to act who isn't getting a cut of the take from the scams.

What do you do? Ban all traffic to and from them? Good luck doing so, even if you try.

One word:

China.

And if China could close up its digital borders, the U.S., say, could do it as well, and rid the country of traffic from Russia, Korea, Nigeria, etc, etc, as they wished.

Any and every country could put up its own digital borders.

And as I said, it might not be 100% effective, but for all practical purposes, it would do the job of isolating a country to only the traffic they permitted.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Perhaps we should start building all public rest rooms with transparent walls. Perhaps people would then understand why I feel violated knowing my phone can be tapped and my mail can be inspected for no good reason.

Personally, I know that but I'm not terribly upset.

I've had discussions elsewhere with members of the tin foil hat crowd, who are firmly convinced that Microsoft is in league with the NSA to leave back doors in Windows so the Feds can snoop on their machines. All I can say is "You wish you were important enough that anyone in power would bother to snoop on your machine!"

Because that's what's really bothering them. They're powerless. They aren't important. They don't matter. Nobody cares what they think.

Classical paranoia is a defense mechanism against underlying feelings of insignificance and unimportance. If you can concoct a fantasy in which "they" are out to get you, you're important! You matter! Someone cares enough to go through the trouble of trying to get you!

Hey! I'm not important. I don't matter. With the exception of family and a few close friends, nobody cares what I think. And that suits me just fine. Anonymous people keeping a low profile have far greater freedom of movement.

I doubt anyone could snoop on my machine without physically entering my premises and sitting down at it. If they do that. I've got bigger problems than potential exposure of personal information. But the government, at least, has no reason to try. There aren't that many folks who would do such a thing, and they all have much more important targets.
______
Dennis