Zachary Amaranth said:
But you asked why people are against regulating the internet, and such regulation usually comes in the form of changes to the law. You even noted loss of anonymity, which would involve legal changes beyond merely "restructuring."
Yes, but it's not a black-and-white issue. Most things are regulated in ways you're not even aware of. For example, McDonald's restaurants are actually designed to make you uncomfortable and want to leave as soon as possible (bright lights, loud crappy music, hard furniture, even their colour scheme is chosen to be unsettling). Airport security is another good example: in the early days of commercial airlines there was actually massive outcry in America when they stopped allowing people to take their concealed firearms on-board. Now look at us, we're happy as long as we're not being X-Rayed and molested, though when that does happen most people accept it.
The point is, regulation is a part of life, a ubiquitous shade of grey that acts as a way to keep masses of stupid, irresponsible or sinister people from hurting themselves or each other. Do you
really think people are smart, responsible and noble enough to be able to handle it themselves?
neonit said:
anyway, i think humanity grew up enough to handle such big toy as internet, lets not make humanity stupider than it is, k? too much "police" and you can kiss that last fragment of "freedom" goodbye.
Freedom is something we partially trade for safety. How much freedom we give away is the part that needs to be figured out carefully, but trying to have your cake and eat it too is foolish. All that freedom will count for nothing if you're made the victim of a serious cyberattack. And what will you turn to then?
Zachary Amaranth said:
To me, this sounds like putting your thumb over that dark spot on your X-Ray. Sure, you don't see the problem, but by ignoring it you are neither treating it nor stopping its potential spread.
Of course you are stopping it. I'm just mirroring exactly how the police operate in real life. You don't go down to every crackhouse and brothel and street corner and bust everyone you see. Nobody has the resources to do that, let alone the prison space for that many convicts; and the only real difference you've made is providing the opportunity for another gang to move in. So what they do, instead, is regulate the criminals. Make sure they keep to their own space, and affect as few innocent citizens as possible. Set out the rules, and get them to self-regulate. That way, the only time you have to expend resources is to keep them in line, rather than constantly chasing after them. It's not ideal, but this is what people who study security, like me, are taught.
My point, to both of you, is this: you can either have well-thought out regulations devised now, by academics who understand the ethical and social considerations involved. And accept them. Or, you can wait until some mega-corporation like Microsoft gets a big enough black eye from cyberterrorism that they decide to take matters into their own hands. They'll use financial pressure to coax the media and politicians into supporting some bill they've written up that gives them the right to secure their own profits by any means necessary. And the opportunity to have a fair, unbiased regulatory system will be lost, just because people were too "meh" about it the first time.
