Kaspersky Labs CEO calls for the end of internet anonymity

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.

 

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.

No, speaking for myself.

Blue

 

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

 

lets just say if you do that, you are getting the short end of the stick.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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


HKEY1952