Shoot the messenger NOW ! (internet regulation) ...

[xaq141175]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3465383.stm

Originally Posted by Malcolm Sentence(Jane Longhurst's partner)

"Jane would still be here if it wasn't for the internet."

Well, here we go again. Everytime a highly publicised crimimal is found to have been using the net, it gets presented as a cause for the crime, rather than the website's they visit. Even that link is tenuous.

But as for the article's main point, net reform, i'm more persuaded. It would perhaps be better if net traffic could be more easily traced to it's sender/publisher. That can be done now but it's very resource intensive.

Hell, a new system would no doubt bring much higher performance too, there is better technology than the TCP/IP currently used.

So yeah, revamp the net, but lets not do it with criminals being the centre of attention.

[kronas]

hold on there some of us want our privacy on the internet, ofcourse the press are going to point out the internet is a resource tool for everything, but i do NOT want my whereabouts tracked if i did, id let spyware install on my PC.

[Flubflow]

I wonder if there were any similar stupid knee jerk examples in history when, for example, morse code, the telephone, or even the automobile was first used indirectly for a criminal activity.

The TV media don't help matters. I get sick of these old fuddyduddy journalists and presenters who often have to pause and put a daft expression on their face when they have to read out an email or web address. An expression that says, "that daft geeky internet thingummyjig that I'm too thick to understand and use".

There is more good than bad on the internet and yet it is always the lowest common denominator that gets the media attention.

[Nor]

Front page of the mirror said "Killed by the Internet" or something. Its just ridiculous tabloid rubbish. I do agree in tighter regulation. The ISPs should get their act together and remove alot of the terrible stuff from the net.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Nor

Front page of the mirror said "Killed by the Internet" or something. Its just ridiculous tabloid rubbish. I do agree in tighter regulation. The ISPs should get their act together and remove alot of the terrible stuff from the net.

The problem with the tabloids is that the internet is competition for them so they are quite happy to sl@g** it off at the slightest oppurtunity. Just look at the quality of some of their websites. Pitiful.

The only thing an ISP can physically remove is content on their own subscriber's homepages or postings/access to their own newsgroup servers.
We don't hold the post office or telephone companies responsbile for the actions of other people so I don't see why should ISPs have all of this burden placed on them. Perhaps a better reporting system for the public is needed so that it is easier to make the law aware of illegal websites and get them shut down. However, there is more to the internet than the just web (Usenet, FTP, P2P, IRC etc) so it is not an easy task especially since it is global.

**Edit: I can't beleive the word "sl_a_g" was autocensored in this post!
Ironic isn't it. Just proves that trying to control nasty internet content will often end up affecting innocent content.

[Nor]

Don't ISPs provide the backbones for the hosting companies though ? What I mean really is that for example if a hosting company is allowing child pornography or something on their servers aren't the ISPs able to close them down by removing their bandwidth ?

Don't really know exactly how it all works, happy to be corrected.

[Florence]

When a motorist kills someone in an accident or a hit and run its not Killed by a car.. do they ban all cars.. NO

Its not the internet its the perticular site or the fact that parents havent been monitoring the children correctly. On my website I do mention that children need supervising on the internet. There is a lot of good information on the interent that cna help youngsters get better grades if used as it was intended.

I work in a school and we use it a lot yet some children are missing out due to parents reading such headlines and refusing to give permission for their child to go on the internet....

The safety code for internet is best used when allowing teenagers access aswell.

Monitor, supervise and check history..

This may seem like you don't trust the child/teenager but if you always explain why that its not them but those who are hiding on the net that you don't trust then things should be fine...

Well said, Kitty.

This is just a typical "fear of the new" scare story. To claim that "the internet" killed this girl or that she would be alive if it wasn't for the net is hysterical nonsense and just part of our "shift the blame" culture.

It's always *someone else's* fault and now the net is a convenient scape goat which the tabloids can milk into circulation grabbing headlines.

Trying to censor the whole internet because of a relatively few tragic events would just be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It gives us, the people, the most powerful tool we've ever had for freedom, yet many of those in power want to restrict it or regulate it. They claim they want to "protect us", but often it's their own backsides they're really protecting because they get panicked into needing to be seen to be "doing something"

Of course what really ends up happening is that they go for short-sighted knee-jerk regulation that will restrict the *legitimate* users whilst those who have an interest in using it for less salubrious purposes will simply find ways around the restrictions.

Any tool can be abused or misused, but banning it or regulating it will not stop this happening, the only solution is to *educate* people in ways to use it properly and safely and for them to learn how to *avoid* those who would abuse it.

[Shaun]

Privacy is soon to be a thing of the past anyway, there are several new technologies out there to try and combat stuff like e-mail spoofing and the like. Once these new systems are in place it will be almost imposable to hide who sent or received data (emails especially) which will make tragic events like this few and far between (hopefully).

I can't find the link to the article at the moment but when I do I'll post it (it was new scientist for anyone interested)

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by dellwear

Privacy is soon to be a thing of the past anyway, there are several new technologies out there to try and combat stuff like e-mail spoofing and the like. Once these new systems are in place it will be almost imposable to hide who sent or received data (emails especially) which will make tragic events like this few and far between (hopefully).

I can't find the link to the article at the moment but when I do I'll post it (it was new scientist for anyone interested)

I don't see how this tragic event would have been avoided. Making internet users more easily identifiable to the authorities would certainly have made the computer forensic's job slightly quicker but the crime had already been committed anyway.
It might help in cases where a person has gone missing and has possibly gone to meet someone they chatted to on the internet whereby the police will need the info fast without having to go through loads of policy and paperwork to get access to the info. How far do you go though.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

I don't see how this tragic event would have been avoided. Making internet users more easily identifiable to the authorities would certainly have made the computer forensic's job slightly quicker but the crime had already been committed anyway.
It might help in cases where a person has gone missing and has possibly gone to meet someone they chatted to on the internet whereby the police will need the info fast without having to go through loads of policy and paperwork to get access to the info. How far do you go though.

I think the idea is to make people that produce these websites and e-mails more accountable, if they can trace them more easily then they can take action against them

[kronas]

Originally Posted by dellwear

I think the idea is to make people that produce these websites and e-mails more accountable, if they can trace them more easily then they can take action against them

no, the article talks about china blocking sites via firewall, IMO thats wrong i dont see regulation of the internet as a step forward, its a step back.

the internet if used correctly is a good resource for people of all ages, to create a 'firewall' in blicking content can also go against the freedoms of expression, i can see countries blocking sites because the goveernments do not agree with the authors train of thoughts.

as everyone has pointed out the knee jerk reactions are just scaremongering to people who will jump at the chance to go against the information highway.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by kronas

no, the article talks about china blocking sites via firewall, IMO thats wrong i dont see regulation of the internet as a step forward, its a step back.

The article also talks about the new tecnologies that are being implimented by companys to prevent spoofing. AOL are already using some such technology.


See attached

[xaq141175]

Anonimity on the net is a misnomer as far as i'm concerned ... every single packet of TCP/IP information has a sender/receiver address in the overhead. If someone wanted to track your activity, all they need is resource's, time and access to your ISP's log files.

Traceability should be easy enough for police forces but too expensive for the typical net vandal, such as spammers and infecters. It's all about balance at the end of the day.

Too little regulation and net vandals will, I assure you, grind the whole internet to a halt in which case freedom of expression is denied. Too much regulation and you end up with a goon squad in uniform knocking on your door with a big heavy object.

Police are more accountable to the public than the vandals could ever be.