Comments on: Internet Security Concerns, Online Anonymity, and Splinternets

By: book review: Cyber War by Clarke & Knake

book review: Cyber War by Clarke & Knake — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:15:36 +0000

[...] As my old colleague Wayne Crews used to always tell me, if you’re looking for a completely secure network, [...]

By: book review: Cyber War by Clarke & Knake

book review: Cyber War by Clarke & Knake — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:07:05 +0000

[...] more vulnerable to various forms of attacks. As my old colleague Wayne Crews used to always tell me, if you’re looking for a completely secure network, the Internet is not the network for [...]

By: Splinternets and cyberspaces vs. net neutrality | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:01:29 +0000

[...] like privacy, spam, porn and cyber-trespass, I called for a “splinternet” mindset then and put it as follows: The Internet needs borders beyond which users can escape damaging political resolutions of [...]

By: Icma2002.Com » Blog Archive » Do You Want a New Internet?

Icma2002.Com » Blog Archive » Do You Want a New Internet? — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:20:18 +0000

[...] model, writes Mr. Thierer, could be more feasible than revamping the Internet (”Starting over isn’t even possible in [...]

By: dm

dm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:13:56 +0000

"All property moves toward private, proprietary control" is too simple-minded a maxim. It may be true of exclusionary resources, but it's not true of things that can be duplicated freely or shared freely. Nor is it true where the transaction-costs of maintaining proprietary control weigh too heavily against the benefits gained from that proprietary control. Technology can decrease transaction costs (look at the notion of replacing toll-booths with stations that photograph one's license plate and send one a bill --- now every street has the potential of being a toll-road), but it can also decrease the utility of those charges --- the old bits-vs.-atoms argument that's dissolving intellectual-property monopolies, or DRM that does more harm than good, for examples.

Your gated-community notion is interesting, but I'm not convinced you aren't just re-inventing Compuserve and AOL. Those open technologies are widespread because they deliver benefits that closed technologies do not.

For that matter, I think you've been overtaken by your metaphors --- we don't have one "physical network" now. We have an amalgam of networks with gateways between them that pass data using various physical protocols, with IP sitting on top of them (and TCP and friends on top of that).

By: Antivirus Program For XP | Antivirus Software Ratings'09

Antivirus Program For XP | Antivirus Software Ratings'09 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:25:08 +0000

[...] Internet Security Concerns [...]

By: dm

dm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:13:56 +0000

By: dm

dm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:13:56 +0000

By: A long winded post that is mainly about the Internet, but it strays. « Heavy On The Seltzer

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:12:54 +0000

[...] is kind of like Facebook, where you join to participate but agree to surrender your identity. The Technology Liberation Front posted an interesting response to that, saying replacing the entire Internet is not the right path, [...]

By: Wayne Crews

Wayne Crews — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:20:22 +0000

Adam thanks for this; when i first saw your email to me yesterday on the New York Times article I didn't realize you'd done this extensive post (cursed blackberry screen, plus nosepicker kids in the background).

Guess you've caused me to jump back into the "Splinternets and Cyberspaces" debate. Basically my point has always been that the "capital-I" Internet of today is not the same as not-yet-created multimedia networks that will exist in the future; those will have numerous dedicated purposes and will need to keep certain people off and would be crazy to blindly adopt an overly open architecture that is an artifact of the Internet's public origins. All property moves toward private, proprietary control; that will include future network technology. Networks may use "internet" technology, but need not all use the same physical network. This is especially feasible as societies generations hence become wealthier and network industries' various ventures create an assortment of dedicated networks. Metcalfe's Law is true, but so is my corollary; that if people are on your network deliberately devoted to destroying it or otherwise creating pandemonium or preventing you from making security and privacy guarantees to anyone, then the value of your network rises as you flick them off. Note that, in utter contrast to the net neutrality unicorn, this is a future of vastly greater and diverse network-and-infrastructure (and content) wealth than imaginable today.

Also, related privacy work i do makes a case that, even as we strive to protect political anonymity online, we may need/desire less commercial anonymity, which will drive the creation of such networks. More on that to come i suppose, since you drew me out on this, but there's a link to a policy study somewhere.

-wayne crews

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:52:55 +0000

Just look at what happens to gated communities in the real world: they become more attractive targets for serious, seasoned criminals. In many respects, a middle class family's children in Mexico City are more secure on a daily basis than the children of the rich who live in elaborate, secure gated communities.

Furthermore, if splintered networks really worked, then military networks like SIPRNet would never get hacked, but they occasionally do by foreign governments. When you split off from the rest of the Internet, you make yourself a bigger target. Some systems should be off that grid, but people shouldn't kid themselves that it offers a huge security boost over anyone other than low-level criminals.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:28:05 +0000

Good points, Kevin. I agree that social networking sites are, in many ways, already becoming mini-Splinternets. One of the interesting points Randall Stross makes in his new book Planet Google is how Facebook is essentially rebuilding the old walled garden model and establishing a self-governing community playing by a somewhat different set of rules than the rest of the wide open Net. It's true to some extent, but Facebook also has some back doors to the broader Internet and is not exactly the same sort of thing Wayne Crews is talking about. But, as you note, it's has micro-splinternet qualities.

Also, regarding the Zittrain point, I addressed it somewhat in my original review of his book. To recap, I agree that civic technologies can play a role in correcting some online security problems. But, as I noted in my review, the flaw with this approach is that:

"It seems he wants to solve the problems brought about by openness with more openness -- primarily in the form of collective intelligence and action. If we all just find smart ways to work together, we can improve open systems, he argues. Well, sure we can.. sorta. But it will never work perfectly on its own. Some people are going to want more safety and security. They should get it, even if comes in the form of 'sterile appliances and tethered devices.' Because, again, the rest of us always have the option to choose something else."

http://techliberation.com/2008/03/23/review-of-...

In other words, some folks are just going to want to drop out of the current system entirely and find the sort of "gated communities" that Markoff and Crews are talking about. What I was getting at in my piece is that it is harder to create those communities than people think, and they come at a cost -- lost connectedness and openness.

By: Kevin D

Kevin D — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:58:08 +0000

Couple thoughts:

1. Don't we have splinternet-lite already? Yet Facebook and MySpace certainly aren't secure. Aren't we just going to face the similar arms race within the splinternets (especially ones that are big enough (scaled up) to be a worthwhile target.

2. Also, I'm surprised you didn't address this more in the context of Zittrain's book. As much as there are examples of contingent generativity in the mobile arena, "The Future of the Internet" was about the broader threat coming from a backlash against the insecurities of openness. The ideas Markoff addresses are that.

I think what's missing from this discussion is what Zittrain has promoted: civic technologies. (If you haven't seen it already, you should check out the video linked here: http://blurringborders.com/2008/07/13/civic-tec...) People should be engaged and aware and have a civic ethic in dealing with technology.

3. Another reason to avoid an "Internet passport" would be that it could increase the risk - if identity is tied to Internet use, exploits would threaten our identity security.