>That's your proposal, not mine, TYVM You're welcome. My "proposal" being quite ironically intended, of course.
One really has to ask however what exactly >In an anarchic fashion that opened us up to all sorts of network abuse. actually means or what the proposed "solution" would actually look like. Of course it's easily to refer to something like " a planned transition that included the same type of oversight..." without giving any hint of what it really means. What is and who decides what is "abuse", then? And who is going to be in charge of not allowing it? And what exactly would this look like? I see basically two possibilities, not allowing "unauthorized people" onto the Net at all (now who might they be?) or expanding the technology to enable "authorities" to control and censor anything they didn't like and only allow access to government/corporate authorized services. Well of course, there have been and still are plenty of attempts to do exactly that. All of them come down to restricting normal people's access with extended government and/or corporate control. Which would of course lead to exactly the second part of my "proposal". Is that then what you are actually hoping for? . And whether that would really mean >maybe without the epidemics of, e.g., spam, virus attacks, DOS attacks. is highly dubious. All attempts to create security in computer systems seem to be doomed as clever people find ways around them. The Internet is more like a living organism that wants to live and expand than a traditional piece of technology. As far as counterfactuals go though, I'm actually pretty sure that with "planned transition" and "oversight" we wouldn't have an Internet at all, just some more pipes for advertising, "entertainment" and (mis)information. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 23:30 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: AW: Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? In <E36DC330434FBA4ABA45590D5370A88B076C4765@INTERCHIP-SBS.interchip.local>, on 07/24/2012 at 12:19 PM, David Stokes <[email protected]> said: >Yeah, right. Much better to restrict it to government and corporations >who never abuse things. That's your proposal, not mine, TYVM. What would have been better would have been a planned transition that included the same type of oversight that ARPA and NSF had with regard to network abuse. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
