Interesting People mailing list archives

Re: Lauren Weinstein -- Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Callsfor Internet "Driver's Licenses"

From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:06:57 -0500

Begin forwarded message:

From: jason () calacanis com
Date: February 2, 2010 6:02:16 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Lauren Weinstein -- Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Callsfor Internet "Driver's Licenses"
Reply-To: jason () calacanis com

Dave, in Korea you have to login to social networks and blogs on Naver, Nate and Daum.net with your social security 
number. 

In some respects we are already opting into an internet drivers license: Facebook Connect. On Facebook you can't be a 
fake person according to their TOS, and in large part the service is real userd (much more than twitter or myspace). 

It would actually be an amazing business move for Facebook to require verification, or have two levels of accounts: 
verified and not.

Twitter already verifies celebrities. 

Market solution would be best IMO. Let folks opt into the wild west on 4chan, and Disneyland on Facebook. 

Best j
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:51:27 -0500
To: ip<ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: [IP] Lauren Weinstein -- Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Calls for Internet "Driver's Licenses"

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: February 2, 2010 4:36:50 PM EST
To: "Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology" <synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com>
Cc: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Lauren Weinstein -- Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Calls for Internet "Driver's Licenses"

All it would take is one really big terrorist event that was linked
(correctly or not) to the Internet and watch how fast the whole
world salutes Internet Control.

--Lauren--

On 02/02 16:28, Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology wrote:

That flag might work temporarily in the US but I suspect there would be
considerably more inertia outside your national boundaries.  Where it would
run into problems would be when someone points out that this is creating a
huge security problem with the potential for forged credentials.  Again, I'm
not saying we shouldn't fight  the principle. I'm saying the 'make them look
like dangerous lunatics' sober technical approach seems to work best at
shooting down such grandstanding in the past. I'm also not convinced that
they can implement much without tearing down/starting up (and risk getting
disconnected from Canada and the EU in the process).
And we haven't even begun to talk about how plenty of businesses such as
Disney would want to object strenuously to this.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> wrote:


I think that if the national security "scare the people" flag were
waved vigorously enough, you'd be amazed at the level of crackdown
that would be possible without redesigning the Net from scratch,
certainly enough to accomplish an initial stage of onerous controls
sufficient to accomplish their short-term political ends.

--Lauren--


On 02/02 14:40, Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology wrote:

I see that point to a degree and I undestand the need to contiunously and
vigorously defend against such controls.

But when he makes a point that is so obviously erroneous I have to think

it

lessens his credibility and consequently hurts that cause.  When he makes
the call and someone stands up and asks him "so you are advocating

shutting

down the internet completely and starting over with something fresh and
untested?"  doesn't it make that whole control-is-a-goal look foolish and
irresponsible and consequently less credible and less reasoned?  The

reason

to react is his position at Microsoft.  What he is effectively saying is
that Microsoff is in favor of throwing everything out and starting over

with

something that is untested and unproven.  When you put it that way, I

think

maybe 12 people on the planet will buy into it.

We went through something similar when the Trademark bar tried to 'own'

the

internet. And almost the same when the micropayment folk wanted to charge
for everything...and the content police...etc etc.  I think history

teaches

us  that people will buy into these harebrained grandstanding postures

and

it is necessary to fight them on moral/ethical grounds.

But once you make them look totally foolish and dangerous on a practical
level,  they go away fast.  People are essentially selfish and if you

give

them choices with the consequences to them, they usually vote the right
way.  Tell them it will make them more 'secure' they will want it.  Tell
them they will have to throw everything out and lose this and that and

this

and that and start over with everything just to get something that will

curb

their freedom at the technology level?  Who is going to vote for that?

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>

wrote:


Whether or not it can be done as he suggests isn't really the point.
He knows the reality even if he's talking past it for effect.  But
when someone of his stature and representing Microsoft makes such
comments at such a gathering, it plays into the hands of those
governments who want to tightly control access to the Net through any
and all means possible.  So he's still being irresponsible in the
extreme.

--Lauren--




-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1

Archives         




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Current thread:

Re: Lauren Weinstein -- Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Callsfor Internet "Driver's Licenses" David Farber (Feb 03)