3 ms·

I think this is a big mistake there is no need for any more government action, until there is a serious problem it'd be best to let evolve on it's one. From the

I think this is a big mistake there is no need for any more government action, until there is a serious problem it'd be best to let evolve on it's one. From the article, here's a quick rebuttal to a few points: (* is there point, -- is rebuttal) * If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it. -- If users do not trust the system a new one will be rapidly developed to ensure their trust; there is too much money involved for this to exist as problem. Hell it could be as simple as credit cards being issued with a token that generates valid numbers for given amounts -- one time use, and limit on how much they can charge. If you don't get they item then you chargeback. * If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online. - They may threaten to stop putting it online, but it will only hurt them. This is backwards thinking -- they're trying told hold back progress. This seems like a way for them to force draconian drm on the populace. * If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers. -- This is probably the most responsible thing for them todo. Security is hard, and if they cannot secure their network I don't see how that is anyone else's problem. Of course prosecuting the criminals is the responsibility of the government. * If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet. -- Anyone can run DNS servers so this is not a problem. In fact we might see new protocols/applications to manage mutli-dns system. Once again this is non issue, if the machine has an ip address then it doesn't matter how you look it up. Hell, we could make phone books full of them. * Those are just some examples but I think this issue of trust applies to every actor on the Internet. -- Those are pretty poor examples of how the government might try to wedge itself into the internet and destroy something awesome.

scott_s 17y ago
Your comments make it sound like the author implied "we need to take action about this." The surrounding text from those points: I say yes but just as emphatically, I say that the government’s role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator. There’s little question that our existing regulatory structures are poorly equipped to deal with these issues. They are too slow, they are too backward looking, and they are too political to be effective. But it concerns me that in the absence of some level of government involvement, we will lose the one thing that the Internet must have—not just to thrive, but to survive—the trust of all actors on the Internet. ... A good place for policymakers to start as we define our role and what our actions should be is to preserve and maintain trust in the Internet. ... At NTIA, we’re not a regulatory agency, but as the principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy, I think we have role to play in preserving and building trust on the Internet. He did not present those points above as places for the government to insert itself. Rather, he identified those as places where trust is important. The surrounding text states that he does not yet know what role government should have in maintaining that trust, but it's something that needs to be explored.
- yanw 17y ago
  What's most frustrating about this is that it's about copyright, it's a part of a world wide trend initiated by the US Gov't that started in South Korea and NZ, reached the EU with the changes in the UK and France are the most apparent not to mention the secretive and scary ACTA negotiations. basically what the gov't is saying is the Internet has done exceptionally well without our meddling but because of the request of some special interests we will have to take another approach.

scott_s 17y ago

Your comments make it sound like the author implied "we need to take action about this." The surrounding text from those points: I say yes but just as emphatically, I say that the government’s role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator. There’s little question that our existing regulatory structures are poorly equipped to deal with these issues. They are too slow, they are too backward looking, and they are too political to be effective. But it concerns me that in the absence of some level of government involvement, we will lose the one thing that the Internet must have—not just to thrive, but to survive—the trust of all actors on the Internet. ... A good place for policymakers to start as we define our role and what our actions should be is to preserve and maintain trust in the Internet. ... At NTIA, we’re not a regulatory agency, but as the principal advisor to the President on telecommunications and information policy, I think we have role to play in preserving and building trust on the Internet. He did not present those points above as places for the government to insert itself. Rather, he identified those as places where trust is important. The surrounding text states that he does not yet know what role government should have in maintaining that trust, but it's something that needs to be explored.

yanw 17y ago
What's most frustrating about this is that it's about copyright, it's a part of a world wide trend initiated by the US Gov't that started in South Korea and NZ, reached the EU with the changes in the UK and France are the most apparent not to mention the secretive and scary ACTA negotiations. basically what the gov't is saying is the Internet has done exceptionally well without our meddling but because of the request of some special interests we will have to take another approach.