Page 1 of 3

Richard Clarke calls for "closed Internet"

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:51 am
by judasdisney
Sorry if this has already been posted -- I didn't see it elsewhere here, but I'll take it down if there are any complaints.

Note on Richard Clarke: the highly respected (for dubious reasons) man who declared on 9/11 without evidence that Osama Bin Laden was responsible.

Microsoft-loving (former) security czar calls for closed internet
By Cade Metz in Santa Clara
Published Tuesday 2nd October 2007 22:24 GMT

Richard Clarke, the man who served President Bush as a special adviser for cyber security, has a five-point plan for saving the internet.

Speaking at a Santa Clara University conference dedicated to "trust online," Clarke called the net "a place of chaos in many ways, a place of crime in many ways," but laid out several means of righting the ship, including biometric IDs, government regulation, and an industry wide standard for secure software. He even embraces the idea of a closed internet - which seems to have sparked a death threat from net pioneer Vint Cerf.

"A lot of these ideas go against the grain. A lot of these ideas are ones people have already objected to - because of certain shibboleths, because of certain belief systems, because of certain idealogical differences," Clarke said. "But if we're going to create trust in cyberspace, we have to overcome some of those shibboleths, overcome some of those ideological differences, and look anew at these ideas."

According to Clarke - who was also a special assistant to the President for global affairs and national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism - about 35 per cent of all U.S. citizens would rather shoot themselves than carry a national ID card. But he thinks they're being silly. He believes biometric IDs are an essential means of fighting online crime.

"One thing you could do with a biometric ID card - if you wanted to - is prove your identity online," he said, as if taunting his critics.

Yes, he realizes that internet mavens value online anonymity. But he insists this has nothing to do with biometric internet IDs. "One of the ideological underpinnings of the internet is that we're anonymous," he said. "Well, guess what? We're not anonymous. Amazon and DoubleClick and all those other companies already know everything about what you're doing online." ID cards don't eliminate anonymity, he explained, because anonymity is already gone. Then he added that Bill Gates agrees with him.

Next, Clarke called for more government oversight of the net. According to his rough calculations, 75 per cent of all U.S. citizens are against government regulation of any kind. But he thinks they're being silly too. "You don't want government regulation? Then just let your kids eat all that lead off their toys."

In short, he believes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should force ISPs to crack down on cyber-crime. "[The FCC] could, for example, say to all the ISPs, 'You will do the following things to reduce fraud, bot nets, malicious activity, etc."

Isn't the government one of the problems where online privacy is concerned? It is, as Clarke pointed out. He also called for a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fighting abuses of government power. "What if we had a champion in the government who we trusted on privacy rights and civil liberties? What if we had a government advocate with real power to ensure that the government doesn't violate privacy rights."

That's three points from the five-point plan. Two more to go.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number four: A secure software standard. "We should look, as an industry, at improving the quality of secure code, so that we don't need to issue software patches, so there aren't trap doors - intentional or otherwise," he said. "This is not a revolutionary idea. We put this in place a long time ago for electrical appliances."

This is Clarke's least controversial notion, but you have to wonder how effective it can be. Removing all bugs from electrical equipment is one thing. Removing them from software code - some of the most complex stuff ever invented - is another.

In discussing secure software standards, Clarke slipped in another plug for Microsoft. "This is an idea Microsoft has already championed," he said. And then he said it again. Bill and gang sponsored the conference.

And, yes, Clarke's fifth and final idea is a less than open internet. "Another idea that's already been rejected that I think we should look at again is the idea of a closed internet," Clarke said. "Why should the part of the internet that's connected to the power grid be open? Why should that part of the internet that runs nuclear laboratories be open? Why shouldn't there be a closed internet? There are already relatively closed internets - and now we need to think seriously about expanding them."

Several years ago, when Clarke suggested the idea to Vint Cerf, the internet founding father had a fit. "[He] implied he was putting together a firing squad to take me out," Clarke said. ®

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:04 am
by 11:11

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:05 am
by water
Whats stopping him from making his very own closed internet? All he needs is two servers and a cable in a little room in a secure vault on a remote island where nobody but him could trade information with himself ... information which would move in meaningless little circles, so he could achieve his goal of not evolving... :lol:

Talk about agoraphobic.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:46 am
by 8bitagent
It's very interesting Richard Clarke played the ultra limited artist "maverick" to the "evil neocons" part in the 9/11 tragedy...the very man who along with John O'neil were behing the modern 1993 and on Osama/al Qaeda ledger.

The "rebel" that the left loved and the right hated, has a *lot* of splainin' to do.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:20 am
by FourthBase
Eh, nothing he said above is creepy. We're not anonymous anyway, and there shouldn't be the capacity to hack into power grids and nuclear plants. What exactly is wrong with that? Just the sound of "closed internet", I guess.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:44 am
by water
...eehhhhm...

You mean nuclear plants are online hackable? Thats crazy. Is that true? I would have thought critical systems like that werent part of the internet to begin with, why even put them online?

He should clarify exactly what he means by closed internet, youre right...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:57 pm
by H_C_E
"a place of chaos in many ways, a place of crime in many ways,"


The guy is a dim-bulb I think. And frightened of things he can't control I'd surmise as well. Really now, THE ENITRE DAMN PLANET IS A PLACE OF CHAOS AND CRIME in many ways.

I have the urge to poke his damn eyes out.

HCE

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:22 pm
by Et in Arcadia ego
Obviously none of you have ever been rickroll'd..

:twisted:

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:38 pm
by 11:11
It's not only nuclear power facilities that he's talking about. They always want to regulate and control everyone in the name of security. What has ever stopped these facilities from having their own network, or why the hell are they even on line? These places existed pre internet. And, look at his arrogant ass telling going on about kids eating lead in toys. Like it's a threat. I have a better idea. Let him eat lead, we boycott China, and people like him get the hell away from us and the web.

8bit, I had forgotten his previous performance. Now, I 'm sure it was just that.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:36 pm
by theeKultleeder
His arguments are ridiculous. Yeah, Bill Gates agrees with him...

Fact is, open source programmers and peer networks are strong enough to fight bots and stuff like that. We don't need it centralized.

Electronic Frontier Foundation - "Defending Freedom in the Digital World."

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:10 pm
by judasdisney
FourthBase wrote:

Eh, nothing he said above is creepy. We're not anonymous anyway


I have no bank account, no physical address (only a p.o. box at an irregular address under an alternate name), my only Internet access is WiFi via random and disparate wireless signals, I'm off-the-grid, and there is zero chain-of-evidence linking me to any Internet use. My free Yahoo e-mail account contains zero personal information about me, and my laptop contains zero personal information on it. I bought the laptop second-hand.

To say "We're not anonymous anyway" is a sweeping generalization.

To say that "Biometric IDs" aren't creepy is hard to believe. I must wonder whether you read the entire article. If you don't find biometric IDs creepy, invasive, and an invitation for an open abuse of power, then I find it hard to identify why you are a participant with a discussion board like this one.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:19 pm
by FourthBase
Dude, if you think that, say, the NSA couldn't find you and kill you within 10 minutes if they wanted to, you're crazy.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:21 pm
by water
Im not sure which, but one of you has definitely watched the Bourne Identity. :D

(Yeah that was a mindfucking scene.)

On second read, Fourth Base has more of a Tony Scott 'Enemy of the State' type of thing going.

I wonder how much of those ideas are hollywood propaganda we've been led to believe, and how much is true?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:26 pm
by 11:11
Fourth Base, aren't you the one who thought the tasering of the guy at the Kerry speech was okay?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:29 pm
by FourthBase
Maybe 10 minutes is an exaggeration. An hour though? Sure.

Anonymity is great, but it's exceedingly difficult to achieve now as evinced by judasdisney's efforts to make his possible, and long term it's a total lost cause. I'm not saying "bring on the biometric IDs" but I realize that it's useless to resist that aspect of the future. Also, more importantly: Nothing anonymous can change the world, can it?