4 ms·

A lot of people will disagree with you on principle (they view internet access as a "right" rather than a privilege), but I think it's an interesting idea that'

by gen220 6y ago

A lot of people will disagree with you on principle (they view internet access as a "right" rather than a privilege), but I think it's an interesting idea that's worth discussing, if only because we've had similar ideas in the past, with other technologies, and arrived upon similar conclusions. We as a society have decided that negligent actors can do enough harm to themselves or others in operating an automobile on publicly-owned roads, that we compel individuals to seek license from the government to drive vehicles on those roads. The license is a revocable priveilege that has to be earned by ongoing demonstrations of competency. One could imagine a parallel system for "web privileges", although it sounds dystopian at first blush, in contrast to the unprecedented freedoms we enjoy on the web, today. The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. Maybe we'd require some biometric login system, provided by the government, to use a web browser. It's hard to imagine implementing any such system in a way that doesn't make the attack surface bigger, but harder problems have been solved. I can't imagine how "commercial web licenses" would work, though. That's an interesting space for thought.

Avamander 6y ago
> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. This basically makes the entire plan unfeasible. Given the current general insecurity it would be entirely too trivial to somehow fuck up and have a botnet get you banned permanently from the "roads". However, this could work if internet is only available using your digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have and in certain cases also the people.
- gen220 6y ago
  Yep, that's why I suggested the biometric ID. But I agree, it's dystopian. I think such a system would encourage the development of two parallel webs: the above-ground, requires-ID-for-every-http-request web (Facebook, Amazon), and a somewhat shadier, sometimes-or-never-requires-ID-except-in-exceptional-circumstances internet. Kind of like how bars and grocery stores are supposed to verify your age, but many don't. Or kind of like how there's large swathes of the country where people drive around without driver's licenses or insurance, and it isn't an issue unless they end up in an accident.
  - Avamander 6y ago
    The "shadier" internet will be slowly killed. Without any doubt. It would just be more convenient for website hosts, to people in power in general. Especially so under oppressive regimes, I think China has already displayed how internet would end up if we went that route. Restrictive, dangerous for dissidents, without any real privacy.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  > ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will work great for many cases - kids can have access to only this corner, plain vanilla entertainment[1] like Netflix or Disney or Sports, money related stuff[2] like banking / money transfer / shopping, etc etc. We can do those activities with relative peace of mind because everyone accessing this corner would be physically trackable and hence nefarious actors will have the risk of instant exposure. In that sense, it will be very similar to the physical world (or even stricter because of enhanced security). For a lot of other legit reasons like fighting oppressive governments or hacking things to push boundaries or uncensored forums, we can of course have rest of the internet. There will be some nuances just like we do in real world, like: [1] different ratings for entertainment, like R-rated vs PG vs G-rated [2] protecting sensitive info like bank account details or tax returns
aylmao 6y ago
> A lot of people will disagree with you on principle (they view internet access as a "right" rather than a privilege) Well, sure. But that's why the concept of "criminalizing" is key. Criminal behavior curtails your rights. It's on this premise that the concept of prisons is legal and makes sense. IMO rather than forbid internet access, an idea to explore is treating the internet as some sort of public area with similar jurisdiction. Thus, if you send an unsolicited dick pic it'd qualify as indecent exposure which is punishable by law. I think this makes more sense because regulating internet access is hard. You can get public wifi pretty much at any airport or coffee-shop. What doesn't quite make sense is that showing your dick to someone without them wanting to see it can get you a fine or even jail time if you do it in person, but in a photo, video or call online is not punishable.

by gen220 6y ago

Avamander 6y ago

> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. This basically makes the entire plan unfeasible. Given the current general insecurity it would be entirely too trivial to somehow fuck up and have a botnet get you banned permanently from the "roads". However, this could work if internet is only available using your digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have and in certain cases also the people.

gen220 6y ago
Yep, that's why I suggested the biometric ID. But I agree, it's dystopian. I think such a system would encourage the development of two parallel webs: the above-ground, requires-ID-for-every-http-request web (Facebook, Amazon), and a somewhat shadier, sometimes-or-never-requires-ID-except-in-exceptional-circumstances internet. Kind of like how bars and grocery stores are supposed to verify your age, but many don't. Or kind of like how there's large swathes of the country where people drive around without driver's licenses or insurance, and it isn't an issue unless they end up in an accident.
- Avamander 6y ago
  The "shadier" internet will be slowly killed. Without any doubt. It would just be more convenient for website hosts, to people in power in general. Especially so under oppressive regimes, I think China has already displayed how internet would end up if we went that route. Restrictive, dangerous for dissidents, without any real privacy.
RestlessMind 6y ago
> ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will work great for many cases - kids can have access to only this corner, plain vanilla entertainment[1] like Netflix or Disney or Sports, money related stuff[2] like banking / money transfer / shopping, etc etc. We can do those activities with relative peace of mind because everyone accessing this corner would be physically trackable and hence nefarious actors will have the risk of instant exposure. In that sense, it will be very similar to the physical world (or even stricter because of enhanced security). For a lot of other legit reasons like fighting oppressive governments or hacking things to push boundaries or uncensored forums, we can of course have rest of the internet. There will be some nuances just like we do in real world, like: [1] different ratings for entertainment, like R-rated vs PG vs G-rated [2] protecting sensitive info like bank account details or tax returns

aylmao 6y ago

> A lot of people will disagree with you on principle (they view internet access as a "right" rather than a privilege) Well, sure. But that's why the concept of "criminalizing" is key. Criminal behavior curtails your rights. It's on this premise that the concept of prisons is legal and makes sense. IMO rather than forbid internet access, an idea to explore is treating the internet as some sort of public area with similar jurisdiction. Thus, if you send an unsolicited dick pic it'd qualify as indecent exposure which is punishable by law. I think this makes more sense because regulating internet access is hard. You can get public wifi pretty much at any airport or coffee-shop. What doesn't quite make sense is that showing your dick to someone without them wanting to see it can get you a fine or even jail time if you do it in person, but in a photo, video or call online is not punishable.