Kaspersky Labs CEO calls for the end of internet anonymity

[c2d]

The CEO of Russia's No. 1 anti-virus package has said that the internet's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity, calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world.

The comments by Eugene Kaspersky, who is also the founder of Kaspersky Lab, came during an interview this week with Vivian Yeo of ZDNet Asia. In it, he proposed the formation of an internet police body that would require users everywhere to be uniquely identified.


"Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport," he was quoted as saying. "The internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way."

Kaspersky, whose comments are raising the eyebrows of some civil liberties advocates, went on to say such a system shouldn't be voluntary.

"I'd like to change the design of the internet by introducing regulation - internet passports, internet police and international agreement - about following internet standards," he continued. "And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off."

He rejected the notion that internet protocol numbers were sufficient for tracking a user, arguing they are too easy to come by.

"You're not sure who exactly has the connection," he explained. "Even if the IP address is traced to an internet cafe, they will not know who the customer or person is behind the attacks. Think about cars - you have plates on cars, but you also have driver licenses."

Kaspersky was traveling on Friday and not available to be interviewed for this article. A company spokeswoman declined to comment.

Kaspersky admitted such a system would be hard to put in place because of the cost and difficulty of reaching international agreements. But remarkably, his interview transcript spends no time contemplating the inevitable downsides that would come in a world where internet anonymity is a thing of the past.

In Kaspersky's world, services such as Psiphon and The Onion Router (Tor) - which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable inhabiting.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/

[Fly]

Eugene Kaspersky's position on this is not new. (I didn't read the entire article in theregister)

There have been discussions in the past whether he was involved with the KGB or not. I don't know the answer to that question.

Government regulations, those worked so well in the Soviet Union, didn't they ? :wacko:

It's a chilling proposition. Just one step further is chipping everyone and implanting a GPS locator in every adult.

I suppose as a matter of principle I shouldn't buy Kaspersky's software.

You can't have freedom without privacy and anonymity.

And it's not as if IDs can't be faked. And then there is the matter of ID theft.
Government regulation as the cure of all ills ? ::)

What about the third world, China, India, Brazil and the rest, where there is a lot of corruption ? People bribe officials, dissidents can't get an ID, and most people are too poor to pay for an ID. If such a plan were implemented the IDs and the process of issuing IDs should meet high standards. Have one poor and corrupt country issue substandard IDs and criminals all over the world will get their IDs there. And should we really lock out the two-thirds of the world population unable to afford the IDs from the internet ?

Aside from practical issues, I think it's morally wrong. We already have systemic tv camera surveillance, spying by intelligence agencies (Echelon), data retention, router taps and private companies, financial institutions, health organizations and government institutions creating huge databases and more. I don't think we should make it worse than it already is.

It seems I couldn't repress the urge to step on the soapbox.

[ThunderZ]

:thumb: :thumb:

Dead on Fly.

Have never used KAV. Now, as my little form of protest, I never will.....nor will I recommend it to anyone.

[pidbo]

On hearing this I will never use or recommend any Kaspersky product again.

[funkydude]

Yeah, remove one of the most appealing things about the internet, that's the way to get yourself on the hate list quick. ::)

[LockBox]

{QUOTE-> You can't have freedom without privacy and anonymity. <-QUOTE}

Absolutely right. By definition privacy and freedom can't be separated.

[Page42]

What strikes me is that EK appears to be biting the hand that feeds him.

[Baz_kasp]

I love it how El Reg and it's readers seem to have missed the whole "what if" tone of the original (http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm) interview... where they are disucssing an alternative system taking in many assumptions (e.g. the "uncorruptability" of the system) and talking about the matter in theory and now a lot of people have quickly jumped onto the wailing privacy/freedom bandwagon and are screaming about a total non issue. :D

[LockBox]

{QUOTE-> I love it how El Reg and it's readers seem to have missed the whole "what if" tone of the original (http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm) interview... where they are disucssing an alternative system taking in many assumptions (e.g. the "uncorruptability" of the system) and talking about the matter in theory and now a lot of people have quickly jumped onto the wailing privacy/freedom bandwagon and are screaming about a total non issue. :D <-QUOTE}

Baz_kasp, That username tells me you might be a tad biased.

Non-issue? Here's the relevant portion of the interview from ZDNet:

{QUOTE-> If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be?
Internet design--that's enough.

That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet?
There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong…to introduce it in the same way.

I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.

Full interview: http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm

<-QUOTE}

Whether or not he has the power to do it is not the issue. Saying that in an interview is doing exactly what The Register said: "Security boss calls for end to net anonymity" Isn't that exactly what he did?

It's no different than a reporter asking anybody their opinion on what should be done about anything. ZDNet asked a question and EK gave an answer and he did call for an end to net anonymity. No way you can spin that any other way than what he said. The "If you had the power..." part is what's of no consequence. The end to net anonymity is what EK wants, that's what he would like to see happen. That tells some of us all we need to know about Kaspersky and his lack of understanding of what freedom is all about due to his own lack of experience with it. The man graduated from a technical school run by the Soviet Defense Ministry and the KGB in the old Soviet Union before going to work for the Soviet Ministry of Defense. Enough said?


edited to add link to ZDNet interview.

[Pedro]

That's what i was going to quote. There's no nuance in that interview, unless the text does not accurately depict what was said.

It's pretty straightforward stuff. :)

If he thinks like that, i does make me wonder if i would even consider his company's offerings.

[Baz_kasp]

{QUOTE-> Baz_kasp, That username tells me you might be a tad biased.

Non-issue? Here's the relevant portion of the interview from ZDNet:



Whether or not he has the power to do it is not the issue. Saying that in an interview is doing exactly what The Register said: "Security boss calls for end to net anonymity" Isn't that exactly what he did?

It's no different than a reporter asking anybody their opinion on what should be done about anything. ZDNet asked a question and EK gave an answer and he did call for an end to net anonymity. No way you can spin that any other way than what he said. The "If you had the power..." part is what's of no consequence. The end to net anonymity is what EK wants, that's what he would like to see happen. That tells some of us all we need to know about Kaspersky and his lack of understanding of what freedom is all about due to his own lack of experience with it. The man graduated from a technical school run by the Soviet Defense Ministry and the KGB in the old Soviet Union before going to work for the Soviet Ministry of Defense. Enough said?


edited to add link to ZDNet interview. <-QUOTE}

Actually no...because I was born in the Soviet Union and I find it absolutely hilarious the way it is used as a trump card, and the automatic assumption that we are all mindless drones who know nothing about "freedom" and "democracy"....He studied on a KGB funded scolarship, big deal....I studied under a (British) Ministry of Defence scholarship, doesn't make me any less entitled to my own opinion or more likely to be a spy who wants to know what colour underwear people wear to work.

IMO I agree with the principles he is talking about- because he is talking about it from a purely security perspective- if there was a system where everyone was identifiable, much like in a workplace, there would be a lot less chance for malware authors and cybercrime to flourish. Sure, it wouldn't rule out corruption or other flaws but a system with accountability is inherently more secure than an anonymous one.

On the subject of anonymity and privacy as you can see there was no discussion of repressive regimes and net censorship simply because this was not what the interview was about, all it was, was a security expert giving his opinion on the way that cybercrime could have been significantly reduced in an "IF this and that" situation, not on what would happen to the banned chinese/iranian bloggers etc if such a theory was to be true.


Freedom and democracy are all well and good, but to be honest I would sacrifice a little bit of mine if it mean that child abusers and cyber criminals have a harder time hurting our children or stealing our assets (for example)

[Pedro]

{QUOTE->
Freedom and democracy are all well and good, but to be honest I would sacrifice a little bit of mine if it mean that child abusers and cyber criminals have a harder time hurting our children or stealing our assets <-QUOTE}
The sentence starts on the wrong foot.

Sure, my freedom ends when the other person's freedom begins, but these simplistic terms are really, really dangerous.
That's the road to end democracy imo. Thanks but no thanks. Freedom of speech is important over here for decades, and i'd wish we could keep that.

Child abusers are best fought with other means anyway, they don't molest children over the internet..

[Baz_kasp]

{QUOTE->

Child abusers are best fought with other means anyway, they don't molest children over the internet.. <-QUOTE}

But they sell the produce of their abuse and encourage other like minded people to do the same. Its a protected breeding ground for their sick, twisted thinking. Only the stupid ones get caught.

[Meriadoc]

Not an internet I would like, another form of control.

[LockBox]

I think all interpretations - and spin - aside we should let his words speak for themselves. Kaspersky is a supporter of passports and licenses for the internet. That's the bottom line - spinning that interview any other way would make the old Pravda proud.

[I no more than U]

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Kaspersky. I like to think of the government as our all knowing big brother, placing his giant arms around us and protecting us with his powerful biceps. I sleep easy at night knowing my government is there looking out for my best interests. That way, I don't have to think too much or worry about anything.

If I have only one regret, it's that the governments of the world aren't bigger and more all-knowing. Just imagine if we had a camera outside every residence being fed to our leaders. They could look after our interests and well-being 24 hours a day. If I had my way, we would not only have a camera outside every residence but inside as well.

Just imagine how safe we would all feel if our government could make sure no bad things were happening anywhere, inside or outside. I personally wish that all governments of the world would put their differences aside and form one enormous worldwide government that could take care of all of us. Freedom of thought and action are just too darn hard. It's better to let someone else take care of all that for you. :thumb:

[ThunderZ]

@ I no more than U

I truly hope that was stated in jest.
Sarcasm does not translate well in the written\typed word.

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE-> @ I no more than U

I truly hope that was stated in jest.
Sarcasm does not translate well in the written\typed word. <-QUOTE}

So, I've noticed. Nothing I've said in jest thus far on this forum has been taken as intended, regardless of how many smilies I use.

Nonetheless, I'm laying it on pretty thick. It's hard to see how it could be taken seriously.

[BlueZannetti]

Folks,

Let's not head in a political direction. That hasn't appeared overtly, but some of the comments are leaning in that direction.

As for the comments attributed to EK, well...., it's either a joke (poorly executed), something badly lost in translation, or the betrayal of a breathtaking naiveté on multiple fronts and levels.

Blue

[LockBox]

If there was any question, as Fly noted in the 2nd post, this position isn't new for EK. He fiercely took this same position (without as much attention) with PC World/India in December of 2008. In an interview that PC World titled "Interview With A Virus Hunter" he made very similar remarks to what he told ZDNet in the interview published yesterday. Check these words out:

"If I was God, and wanted to fix the Internet, I would start by ensuring that every user has a sort of Internet passport: basically, a means of verifying identity, just like in the real world, with driver's licenses and passports and so on. The second problem is one of jurisdiction. The Internet has no borders, and neither do the criminals who operate on the Internet. However, law enforcement agencies have jurisdictional limits, and are unable to conduct investigations across the globe. I feel we need an international agency to combat this problem, something like an Interpol for the Internet."
Link to that interview (December of last year) at PC World Business:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/155472/interview_with_a_virushunter.html

It's no mistake, it's no joke, it's what EK thinks we need.
Like Interpol? No thank you, Mr. Kaspersky. No authoritarian guardian for the internet. Never.

[chrisretusn]

{QUOTE-> So, I've noticed. Nothing I've said in jest thus far on this forum has been taken as intended, regardless of how many smilies I use.

Nonetheless, I'm laying it on pretty thick. It's hard to see how it could be taken seriously. <-QUOTE}
I thought is was pretty darn thick. 8) I am still wiping the dripping sarcasm off my monitor. :D

Enjoyed your post. :thumb:

[SafetyFirst]

This makes me think if there might be something inside KAV code that "god" put there intentionally but didn't tell us. :lurking:

I suggest: boycott Kaspersky products. I know I will. :isay:

Bye-bye, Kaspersky.

[Tarnak]

{QUOTE-> ....
I suggest: boycott Kaspersky products. I know I will. :isay:

Bye-bye, Kaspersky. <-QUOTE}

...and, I just won a copy of KIS 2010 in the the recent COU anniversary celebrations. - http://www.calendarofupdates.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=23850

P.S. Willing to ~ Folks - this is not ebay. Trading/selling of items is not the purpose of these forums. Comment snipped - Blue ~

[lordpake]

Any intelligent individual should be able to ponder and weight different options, and not rejecting something just because it doesn't fit his/hers world view.

Decisions can not be made unless all the options have been covered and discussed. I don't see anything bad with EK's comments regarding this issue, it's good that at least someone is willing to talk about it.

Instead of burying his head to the sand like certain animal and pretending whatever it is it's not there ...

[funkydude]

So basically everyone using Kaspersky likes his opinions and everyone not using it doesn't. ::)

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> So basically everyone using Kaspersky likes his opinions and everyone not using it doesn't. ::) <-QUOTE}
thats pretty typical of every product here. I mean he is entitled to his thoughts and thats about it. To dump a good product like Kaspersky just because of this is dumb.

hmm, what did I just say.:blink:

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> This makes me think if there might be something inside KAV code that "god" put there intentionally but didn't tell us. :lurking: <-QUOTE}Candidly speaking, that's really jumping a bit too deeply into tinfoil hat land.

It's also pertinent to understand what an organization such as Interpol does and does not do. Interpol could facilitate investigations into cyber based crime much in the same way it does now for other criminal activities which span borders (say drug smuggling, money laundering/fraud, and so on). In fact, computer crime is one of their active focus areas, but due to their function, they are only as effective as the least effective local component.

As with many suggestions that are made to solve any problem, insufficient attention is often given to the unintended consequences of the proposed solution. I have to believe that's in part at play here and it's at play on a number of levels, starting with the implicit surrender of some key aspects of sovereign rights.

{QUOTE-> So basically everyone using Kaspersky likes his opinions and everyone not using it doesn't. ::) <-QUOTE}No, speaking for myself.

Blue

[chrisretusn]

I do not use Kaspersky; however, if I did I would not stop using it over an opinion.

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> ...and, I just won a copy of KIS 2010 in the the recent COU anniversary celebrations. - http://www.calendarofupdates.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=23850

P.S. Willing to ~ Folks - this is not ebay. Trading/selling of items is not the purpose of these forums. Comment snipped - Blue ~ <-QUOTE}
lets just say if you do that, you are getting the short end of the stick.:dry:

[lordpake]

{QUOTE-> So basically everyone using Kaspersky likes his opinions and everyone not using it doesn't. ::) <-QUOTE}

Speaking for myself, I didn't say I like it. My POV is neutral regarding this specific issue at the moment.

I am saying discussion is needed. Instead of pig-headedly refusing to even consider such proposal and properly analyzing its pros and cons.

And ditching everything related to person and/or company he might represent just because he dares to say something like this is just way too absurd.

[funkydude]

Who could you say is qualified to discuss the rules of the internet? They are all, and always will be, opinions. There is also no chance one opinion will satisfy everyone. So could you even approach it?

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE->
I am saying discussion is needed. Instead of pig-headedly refusing to even consider such proposal and properly analyzing its pros and cons.
<-QUOTE}

At first I was against it, being a huge fan of anonymity on the internet. But then I started thinking, this really has its benefits. Instead of being anonymous, I can actually be someone else. Given all the emphasis on authentication, all I have to do is steal someone else's credentials and they take all the blame for all the crap I do.

This is actually better than being anonymous. ;)

[Keyboard_Commando]

I subscribe to the view internet users should be accountable for their actions online. But everybody knows ... the more detals you give out online ... the greater chances you have of being exploited and pestered by various means by various people. It's too double edged to agree with "internet passports", and, especially if you live in an ever-ascending Orwellian nightmare like the UK. :lurking:

[caspian]

{QUOTE->


Freedom and democracy are all well and good, but to be honest I would sacrifice a little bit of mine if it mean that child abusers and cyber criminals have a harder time hurting our children or stealing our assets (for example) <-QUOTE}

That has been one of the biggest cons ever to get people to give up their freedoms. Child sexual abuse has been declining at such a rapid pace that there have been entire studies devoted to trying to understand how this is possible. Researchers have been completely astounded. The last report that I saw concluded that child sexual abuse has declined by more than 50% since 1994. That is huge. And this decline began precisely with the advent of the internet. Also, according to the leading U.S. sociologist who studies this type of abuse, David Finkelhor, child abuse by meeting a stranger on the internet is a tiny little fraction of the abuse that occurs. It is rare.

I remember when I was a kid I heard people on the news talking about how easy it was to buy child porn through the mail. You could just order it from the Netherlands or wherever and it was completely open.....advertised in the back of adult magazines. Even at many of the adult book stores. It is a con to try and shove these irrational fears down people's throats to get them to give up their basic freedoms and liberties. It is sickening. So the mail has been used to commit crimes. The telephones etc... And people commit crimes in the privacy of their homes. Maybe we should have police who randomly enter your home to make sure you are not up to anything.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

[caspian]

I personally will *NEVER* consider using a Kaspersky product again. And I will encourage others to drop them as well. That is a dangerous and dishonest ideology.

[LockBox]

All over the internet there are interesting reactions to his comments to ZDNet. One thing I know is that the short years of experience with the internet shows us that controls over the net can lead to horrible consequences. China, anyone? If you start some kind of international guardian of the internet with power to issue passports/licenses, you give the power for those to be taken away and then that leads to questions we can't get into here such as who has control over this "authority" and the possibility - no, probability - that a political mindset sets in. With the power to regulate and license comes the power to police. That's all a can of worms that surely none of us dare open.

[Baz_kasp]

{QUOTE-> The last report that I saw concluded that child sexual abuse has declined by more than 50% since 1994. <-QUOTE}

Detected child abuse. Anyone with half a braincell and access to the internet can find out about the available "privacy" measures which would make it almost impossible for police to secure a conviction based on technical data.

{QUOTE-> And this decline began precisely with the advent of the internet. Also, according to the leading U.S. sociologist who studies this type of abuse, David Finkelhor, child abuse by meeting a stranger on the internet is a tiny little fraction of the abuse that occurs. It is rare.


<-QUOTE}


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8283413.stm (is this a con, then?)

Doesn't seem to be that rare if it is happening in this day and age...you cannot deny that exact freedom to anonymity that you speak of means people like this get away with hurting innocent children...day in, day out. And that is the truth.

[LockBox]

{QUOTE-> Detected child abuse. Anyone with half a braincell and access to the internet can find out about the available "privacy" measures which would make it almost impossible for police to secure a conviction based on technical data.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8283413.stm (is this a con, then?)

Doesn't seem to be that rare if it is happening in this day and age...you cannot deny that exact freedom to anonymity that you speak of means people like this get away with hurting innocent children...day in, day out. And that is the truth. <-QUOTE}

Absolute access to knives in a kitchen drawer sometimes leads to suffering and heartache. You simply cannot regulate, supervise, license, (whatever) to the point of preventing all things bad from happening. Threats are always around us, but the answer is not a big bureaucratic Interpol-like agency to regulate and license the net.

By the way, your Marie Curie quote in your sig is spot-on and very relevant to this discussion. Jumping to radical measures out of fear would be a huge mistake.

[Pedro]

Again, it's not over the internet. Pictures are shared over the internet, and they seem to have been caught..

Suppose we do what is proposed, and everything goes perfectly. They just move on to other mediums, or do it privately, and what you are left with isn't the internet you once knew anymore.

[caspian]

{QUOTE-> Detected child abuse. <-QUOTE}

Oh please. Sexual abuse in adults and children is reported more freely now than in any time in out history. In the 50's and 60's if a woman was raped, she had to prove in court that she did not cause it. She was the one who was on trial. So it was rarely reported. And children were taught to keep their mouths shut and do what they were told. They were shamed. It wasn't until the 80's and 90's that children were encouraged to speak up....and that it was safe to say no. That they even had a right to say no. Everything use to be hush hush.

Taking away people's freedoms, freedom of speech, a right to privacy and basic human dignity have played absolutely no part in the massive reduction that we have seen in child sexual abuse.

"Sexual abuse substantiations declined 5% from 2005-2006, capping a downward trend of 53% that began in 1992".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3013371/Updated-Trends-in-Child-Maltreatment-bulletin-FINAL-41508

In fact, it appears that the amount of human rights and privacy violations are directly proportional to the amount of sexual abuse that occurs in a society. Think about it. In what types of societies do we see the highest amount of sexual abuse? Or any kind of abuse for that matter. Those who value it's citizen's privacy and dignity? Or those who do not?

In the U.S., the rape rate has declined by 83% since 1973. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm Do you think that this huge decline has anything whatsoever to do with taking away people's freedoms? Of course not. It is a cultural shift. A shift in consciousness. And it is brought about by actually embracing freedoms and human dignity....not devaluing them.. Valuing the individual and his self worth, not raping it, is what fosters good in the world. It is the only thing that has ever created change for good.


{QUOTE-> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8283413.stm (is this a con, then?)

Doesn't seem to be that rare if it is happening in this day and age...you cannot deny that exact freedom to anonymity that you speak of means people like this get away with hurting innocent children...day in, day out. And that is the truth. <-QUOTE}

Here you go. Here is a list of 838 Evangelical ministers who were convicted of molesting kids. http://www.reformation.com/ So should we put cameras and tape recorders in all of the churches and demonize them over a few odd cases? Look. We live in a world population of almost 7 billion people. Of course you are going to have some sick freaks. That goes without saying. But to take some freaky case and use it to characterize the norm is not healthy. And change has never, nor will it ever come about by taking away freedoms. That in and of itself is a human rights violation, and can ONLY have the effect of creating even more of the same.

[SundariDevi]

{QUOTE-> I couldn't agree more with Mr. Kaspersky. I like to think of the government as our all knowing big brother, placing his giant arms around us and protecting us with his powerful biceps. I sleep easy at night knowing my government is there looking out for my best interests. That way, I don't have to think too much or worry about anything.

If I have only one regret, it's that the governments of the world aren't bigger and more all-knowing. Just imagine if we had a camera outside every residence being fed to our leaders. They could look after our interests and well-being 24 hours a day. If I had my way, we would not only have a camera outside every residence but inside as well.

Just imagine how safe we would all feel if our government could make sure no bad things were happening anywhere, inside or outside. I personally wish that all governments of the world would put their differences aside and form one enormous worldwide government that could take care of all of us. Freedom of thought and action are just too darn hard. It's better to let someone else take care of all that for you. :thumb: <-QUOTE}

Could I put a name on your hypothetical government. Ex-Soviet Union? Or at least they would have been happy to have those capabilities. Except because all of the money was going on information feeds and defense you didn't get fed too much in the way of nourishment.

I don't agree with what Kaspersky says in any way, and given his cavalier attitude towards privacy and seeming complete disdain for its value, I quite probably will never purchase KIS again.

In a world where citizens have no right to privacy only government agencies and criminals will be anonymous.

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE-> Could I put a name on your hypothetical government. Ex-Soviet Union? Or at least they would have been happy to have those capabilities. Except because all of the money was going on information feeds and defense you didn't get fed too much in the way of nourishment.

I don't agree with what Kaspersky says in any way, and given his cavalier attitude towards privacy and seeming complete disdain for its value, I quite probably will never purchase KIS again.

In a world where citizens have no right to privacy only government agencies and criminals will be anonymous. <-QUOTE}

You know I was being sarcastic right? I don't in any way agree with Kaspersky's statements.

My comment still makes me laugh when I read it. ;D

{QUOTE-> I sleep easy at night knowing my government is there looking out for my best interests. That way, I don't have to think too much or worry about anything. <-QUOTE}

{QUOTE-> Freedom of thought and action are just too darn hard. It's better to let someone else take care of all that for you. :thumb: <-QUOTE}

Ha ha. Classic. I don't care if no one understands what I'm saying. I'm just going to keep on talking. I amuse myself, and that's enough.

[SundariDevi]

I think everybody gets it and nobody likes the idea, so all the responses are serious. Good post!

[HKEY1952]

{QUOTE-> If there was any question, as Fly noted in the 2nd post, this position isn't new for EK. He fiercely took this same position (without as much attention) with PC World/India in December of 2008. In an interview that PC World titled "Interview With A Virus Hunter" he made very similar remarks to what he told ZDNet in the interview published yesterday. Check these words out:

"If I was God, and wanted to fix the Internet, I would start by ensuring that every user has a sort of Internet passport: basically, a means of verifying identity, just like in the real world, with driver's licenses and passports and so on. The second problem is one of jurisdiction. The Internet has no borders, and neither do the criminals who operate on the Internet. However, law enforcement agencies have jurisdictional limits, and are unable to conduct investigations across the globe. I feel we need an international agency to combat this problem, something like an Interpol for the Internet."
Link to that interview (December of last year) at PC World Business:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/155472/interview_with_a_virushunter.html

It's no mistake, it's no joke, it's what EK thinks we need.
Like Interpol? No thank you, Mr. Kaspersky. No authoritarian guardian for the internet. Never. <-QUOTE}

Gerald, what you and others are failing to understand is that when the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented each and every Internet Enabled Device will have an Fixed IP Address embedded.
The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does.
MAC Addresses are overwhelmingly duplicated by various manufacturers because of the lack of unique alpha numeric abundance and therefore exempt as "Internet Identity Passports".
After the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented, purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner.
Within an decade after the release of Microsoft Windows 7 the Internet will be transformed into an safer, infection free, and reliable Global Communication Network.


HKEY1952

[LockBox]

{QUOTE-> Gerald, what you and others are failing to understand is that when the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented each and every Internet Enabled Device will have an Fixed IP Address embedded.
The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does.
MAC Addresses are overwhelmingly duplicated by various manufacturers because of the lack of unique alpha numeric abundance and therefore exempt as "Internet Identity Passports".
After the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented, purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner.
Within an decade after the release of Microsoft Windows 7 the Internet will be transformed into an safer, infection free, and reliable Global Communication Network.


HKEY1952 <-QUOTE}

HKEY1952, You are writing about pure speculation as if they have already been written in stone. That is not the case. NOBODY has decided that, "purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner."

I have to point out that, again, you are spreading misinformation. Where do you come up with this stuff? I don't ask that simply because you must agree with Kaspersky, but this is another case of you stating wild claims as fact.

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE-> Gerald, what you and others are failing to understand is that when the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented each and every Internet Enabled Device will have an Fixed IP Address embedded.
The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does.
MAC Addresses are overwhelmingly duplicated by various manufacturers because of the lack of unique alpha numeric abundance and therefore exempt as "Internet Identity Passports".
After the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented, purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner.
Within an decade after the release of Microsoft Windows 7 the Internet will be transformed into an safer, infection free, and reliable Global Communication Network.


HKEY1952 <-QUOTE}

Do you have a source?

Anyway, your suggestion is that a non-unique MAC will be replaced by a unique IP address for every device. I presume you believe this IP address can't be spoofed. Well, I would be very surprised if there weren't still some way to send out fake information. As long as that identifier can be spoofed, it does not become a unique identifier. I have a strong suspicion there will be a way to do it.

The internet would really cease to exist as we know it if it were as regimented and controlled as you're claiming. Creativity has always prevailed on the internet.

[HKEY1952]

{QUOTE-> HKEY1952, You are writing about pure speculation as if they have already been written in stone. That is not the case. NOBODY has decided that, "purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner."

I have to point out that, again, you are spreading misinformation. Where do you come up with this stuff? I don't ask that simply because you must agree with Kaspersky, but this is another case of you stating wild claims as fact. <-QUOTE}

Whenever one purchases an Cell or Internet Phone, what is the first thing that must be done before the Phone can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their Cell or Internet Phone, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Phone?

Whenever one purchases and implements an Modem/Router between their computer/s and the Internet Providers cable, what is the first thing that must be done before the Modem/Router can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their Modem/Router, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Modem/Router?

Whenever one Installs Microsoft Windows for the first time or boots up an new computer for the first time with Microsoft Windows Pre-Installed, what is the first thing that must be done before the computer can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their copy of Microsoft Windows, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Operating System on an first time installation on an different computer?

Whenever one.....well.....I hope you can see beyond your internal barrier!...............there is also an record of purchase, and an copy of the purchase receipt out there somewhere, in good hands for safe keeping!


HKEY1952

[LockBox]

HKEY, You said: {QUOTE-> After the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented, purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner.
<-QUOTE}

Where did you get that? Is your second post the answer to that? Because, your second post seems to equate product activation with the Big Brother cobbletrap from Kaspersky. They are two very different things. Every single thing you listed can now be done anonymously and none of it is even close to an "Internet Passport." And maybe YOU have a record of purchase or a purchase receipt for everything that can be traced back to you, but I certainly don't and I would bet a number of people who frequent this particular sub-forum don't either; not out of anything to hide, but because of the basic principles of freedom and privacy. The whole Kaspersky scheme would require licensing, etc. You are, again, way off with the facts and are simply confusing things.

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE-> Whenever one purchases an Cell or Internet Phone, what is the first thing that must be done before the Phone can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their Cell or Internet Phone, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Phone?

Whenever one purchases and implements an Modem/Router between their computer/s and the Internet Providers cable, what is the first thing that must be done before the Modem/Router can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their Modem/Router, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Modem/Router?

Whenever one Installs Microsoft Windows for the first time or boots up an new computer for the first time with Microsoft Windows Pre-Installed, what is the first thing that must be done before the computer can be used?
Whenever one sells or gives away their copy of Microsoft Windows, what is the first thing the new owner must do before they can use the Operating System on an first time installation on an different computer?

Whenever one.....well.....I hope you can see beyond your internal barrier!...............there is also an record of purchase, and an copy of the purchase receipt out there somewhere, in good hands for safe keeping!


HKEY1952 <-QUOTE}

HKEY1952, I refer you to your previous statement, where you stated that "The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does." Then you further implied that we would all be uniquely identifiable online within a decade. How precisely is this going to be accomplished. I refer you to these links about IPV6 from a decade ago.

http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/07/1322244&mode=thread

The idea that an internet enabled device will uniquely identify a user anywhere and everywhere that device is used was thoroughly debunked a decade ago. From those links, I learned that there is an option in IPV6 to have the MAC address as part of the IP, but it's only an option and not mandatory. Further, the MAC address of any device will be just as easily spoofed as it is now.

I fail to see how this will create an "Internet Identity Passport". Further, even if it did, services like Tor and Xerobank are still possible. IPV6 doesn't invalidate these services at all.

So, IPV6 really will do little to authenticate the identity of the user, as far as I can tell. And, really, I'm beginning to wonder if IPV6 is just a myth, like Bigfoot. There's a lot of talk about it, but, seemingly, no one's actually seen it in the wild. ;D

{QUOTE->
Gerald, what you and others are failing to understand is that when the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented each and every Internet Enabled Device will have an Fixed IP Address embedded.
The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does.
MAC Addresses are overwhelmingly duplicated by various manufacturers because of the lack of unique alpha numeric abundance and therefore exempt as "Internet Identity Passports".
After the IPv6 Protocol is fully implemented, purchasing an Internet Enabled Device will require registration, selling or giving away the Internet Enabled Device will require transfer of registration to new owner.
Within an decade after the release of Microsoft Windows 7 the Internet will be transformed into an safer, infection free, and reliable Global Communication Network. <-QUOTE}

[HKEY1952]

{QUOTE-> HKEY, You said:

Where did you get that? Is your second post the answer to that? Because, your second post seems to equate product activation with the Big Brother cobbletrap from Kaspersky. They are two very different things. Every single thing you listed can now be done anonymously and none of it is even close to an "Internet Passport." And maybe YOU have a record of purchase or a purchase receipt for everything that can be traced back to you, but I certainly don't and I would bet a number of people who frequent this particular sub-forum don't either; not out of anything to hide, but because of the basic principles of freedom and privacy. The whole Kaspersky scheme would require licensing, etc. You are, again, way off with the facts and are simply confusing things. <-QUOTE}

I can only speculate how hard it must be for you, so every now and then I feed the Troll.....


HKEY1952

[HKEY1952]

{QUOTE-> HKEY1952, I refer you to your previous statement, where you stated that "The IPv4 Protocol does not have enough IP Addresses to accomplish this "Internet Identity Passport", the IPv6 Protocol does." Then you further implied that we would all be uniquely identifiable online within a decade. How precisely is this going to be accomplished. I refer you to these links about IPV6 from a decade ago.

http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/07/1322244&mode=thread

The idea that an internet enabled device will uniquely identify a user anywhere and everywhere that device is used was thoroughly debunked a decade ago. From those links, I learned that there is an option in IPV6 to have the MAC address as part of the IP, but it's only an option and not mandatory. Further, the MAC address of any device will be just as easily spoofed as it is now.

I fail to see how this will create an "Internet Identity Passport". Further, even if it did, services like Tor and Xerobank are still possible. IPV6 doesn't invalidate these services at all.

So, IPV6 really will do little to authenticate the identity of the user, as far as I can tell. And, really, I'm beginning to wonder if IPV6 is just a myth, like Bigfoot. There's a lot of talk about it, but, seemingly, no one's actually seen it in the wild. ;D <-QUOTE}

Thanks for the links I no more than U, I am off to read them now.....


HKEY1952

[HKEY1952]

The document at playground.sun is an old document (November 6, 1999) an lot of things have changed since.
There are enough IP's in IPv6 that IPv6 can be embedded without the need to append serial numbers, IPv6 has virtually unlimited IP's
An IPv6 Address can be assigned to an device indefinitely, there will never be more than one instance of the IPv6 Assigned Address.


HKEY1952

[I no more than U]

From Wikipedia:

{QUOTE-> The length of network addresses emphasize a most important change when moving from IPv4 to IPv6. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long (as defined by RFC 4291), whereas IPv4 addresses are 32 bits; where the IPv4 address space contains roughly 4.3×109 (4.3 billion) addresses, IPv6 has enough room for 3.4×1038 unique addresses.

IPv6 addresses are typically composed of two logical parts: a 64-bit (sub-)network prefix, and a 64-bit host part, which is either automatically generated from the interface's MAC address or assigned sequentially. Because the globally unique MAC addresses offer an opportunity to track user equipment, and so users, across time and IPv6 address changes, RFC 4941 was developed to reduce the prospect of user identity being permanently tied to an IPv6 address, thus restoring some of the possibilities of anonymity existing at IPv4. RFC 4941 specifies a mechanism by which time-varying random bit strings can be used as interface circuit identifiers, replacing unchanging and traceable MAC addresses.
<-QUOTE}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941

Yeah, I do agree with you that having a portion of the IP address always tied to the MAC address is a security issue. Even with a spoofed MAC address it could be a problem (if the MAC address isn't changed frequently). However the spoofing of the MAC address plus these other measures that are being implemented will probably be sufficient. Only time will tell.

[LockBox]

{QUOTE-> I can only speculate how hard it must be for you, so every now and then I feed the Troll.....


HKEY1952 <-QUOTE}

That made a lot of sense, HKEY. Do you know what a troll is? If you did, you could never read my posts here at Wilders since 2004 as "trolling". Yours on the other hand, serving up misinformation and then running off to say your lawyers have told you not to write on a topic anymore, (remember that?)...I'll leave it there.

I can only speculate how hard it must be for you.

Back to topic?

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Back to topic? <-QUOTE}Good advice for all to follow....

Blue

[HKEY1952]

{QUOTE-> From Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941

Yeah, I do agree with you that having a portion of the IP address always tied to the MAC address is a security issue. Even with a spoofed MAC address it could be a problem (if the MAC address isn't changed frequently). However the spoofing of the MAC address plus these other measures that are being implemented will probably be sufficient. Only time will tell. <-QUOTE}

Yea.....only time will tell partner.....


HKEY1952

[I no more than U]

{QUOTE->

Back to topic? <-QUOTE}


Okay, how about this. I think this whole topic is a moot point. In my opinion, there is no way to reliably verify identities online. Any security measure that is put in place can probably be bypassed. The human mind is designed to authenticate/identify people by facial features, appearance, voice, etc. Any internet authenitication system is simply a lot of technological barriers, which can be bypassed by technological means. The only thing that can really be done is to make it a little more difficult to be anonymous online.

But the people really motivated to be anonymous will go to great lengths, including identity theft. You can't stop motivated individuals from being anonymous online. The only people it hurts are ordinary people looking for some privacy. It also hurts ordinary people who need anonymity to create positive changes. It's a lose-lose to try to implement what Kaspersky is suggesting.

[Rampastein]

Eugene Kaspersky just responded to this in Kaspersky's Viruslist.com weblog.

http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog

My opinion about this is quite neutral, it would have it's good and bad sides, however it's never going to happen.

[SundariDevi]

One feature of kaspersky internet security is important to people who are concerned about Privacy. When you configure kaspersky to filter emails in a certain way (whitelists or anti-spam maybe - i can't remember which or where to find it, because I disabled it from Version 6 on), it keeps a log file of every email you ever write to. something to remember if you want to get rid of all private data on your computer.

[Searching_ _ _]

My thoughts, For what it's worth

A gun is neither good nor evil, but becomes so with the purpose for which it is used.

You can not legislate goodness into the hearts of men.
-Edgar Cayce

The internet is a tool that is neither good nor evil, and no amount of legislation can make men good who choose to be evil in using it.

The policing of the cyber world will take large financial resources for such a system. How would it be paid for, Taxation of the internet?

[arran]

{QUOTE-> On hearing this I will never use or recommend any Kaspersky product again. <-QUOTE}


I couldn't agree more.