How would you fix the internet?

[Aimless]

The internet is everywhere and influences pretty much everything we do. With so much of our money and hopes and dreams invested in the internet, it seems reasonable that we should want the internet to be as perfect as it possibly can be.

Clearly it's nowhere near perfect, with spam and ads and malware and botnets and Anonymous and whatnot.

What're the most urgent problems that need fixing?

[Timbuk2]

The internet is everywhere and influences pretty much everything we do. With so much of our money and hopes and dreams invested in the internet, it seems reasonable that we should want the internet to be as perfect as it possibly can be.

'Influences everything we do' is, I think, massively overstating it.

The scale of the internet and how much of our lives it has permeated is unprecedented, yes, but there are still large aspects of our lives that continue as normal upon which the advent of the internet has had little or no impact ...

Plus, it is still largely a western phenomenon, with hundreds of millions if not billions across Asia and Africa with either tightly controlled and monitored internet access, or no access at all.

Clearly it's nowhere near perfect, with spam and ads and malware and botnets and Anonymous and whatnot.

What're the most urgent problems that need fixing?

The internet is still immature, and its ubiquity very new - only in the last 10 to 15 years has its uptake grown exponentially.

In that, the controls and protections that have been put in have been reactive rather than proactive, as nobody really knows what will crop up next, or how it will be used in the years to come.

~

Security is probably the largest concern, once you disregard all the social phenomena and concerns the internet has unexpectedly introduced which are generally subjective anyway, and vary from place to place and country to country.

And like I say, this aspect of the internet is generally reactive rather than proactive. Anti-virus companies release constant updates to protect against trojans and viruses which are already out there, rather than pre-empting them. Anti-spam much the same; spam mailings find ever more back-door methods of reaching targeted audiences, so ad-spam software and junk filters become more sophisticated to deal with them.

Keys and encryption become more sophisticated as hackers become more sophisticated.

~

The next big concern is probably copyright, and ownership of information. Digital information is sooooo easy to copy.
- Record labels have had all sorts of battles with online sharing, with piracy becoming almost a norm.
- Much the same with computer games companies.
- With faster broadband, streaming and movie downloads are now commonplace. People store hundreds of hours worth of pirate movies on their hard drives.

So All types of companies whose wares are available as online media have horrendous battles against piracy.

Academic information too becomes so readily available, it takes nothing for people to plagiarise a chunk of information and claim it as their own. Universities and more recently schools are having a hard time with this.

[Ominous Gamer]

anon is bad?

[Timbuk2]

What is anon?

Or is he referring to the fact that one is, generally, anonymous on the 'net?

[Aimless]

Of course. They're going around DDoSing people left and right

[Ominous Gamer]

Of course. They're going around DDoSing people left and right

its not random, and its not like anon all has the same objective. In the internet age they are showing what the next wave of activitism is going to look like. You can't exactly protest in front of MC, but a few hours (or days) of news coverage for a DDoS that lasts for a fraction of that seems to get plenty of attention.
Internet is the free society so many governments claim they support (but don't). Sure its got some shady areas, and some annoying traits, but thats the trade off.

What is anon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

[Aimless]

its not random, and its not like anon all has the same objective. In the internet age they are showing what the next wave of activitism is going to look like.

Er, okay, so it's non-random vigilantism on the internet that uses up energy and bandwidth disturbs businesses costs people money and occasionally hurts completely innocent bystanders

[Ominous Gamer]

hurt is an awfully strong word when you are referring to denial of service attacks, especially when you try to throw in innocents.
disturbs businesses and costing money also describes physical protests, which is the comparison I made earlier.

Not to say that parts of anon aren't immature, or a little quick on the trigger, but thats par of the course for fledgling groups before they iron out the kinks

[Nessus]

Academic information too becomes so readily available, it takes nothing for people to plagiarise a chunk of information and claim it as their own. Universities and more recently schools are having a hard time with this.

Actually, when the student has access to that information (I don't know if I'd call reports and such 'academic' but never mind), so do the institutions. You can just as well Google a couple of paragraphs from the students' admissions and see if you get exact hits. As we discussed some time ago, a far bigger problem is students buying ready-made homework from people who make a living writing home work answers. Education is a weird place.

What's more, the availability of truly academic information online is possibly the greatest thing Internet has given, certainly the greatest thing given to the world of science. Whatever literature research I have to do, I can do sitting next to my instrumentation, I don't have to wade through libraries and stacks of dusty, crumbling papers and journals. The ability to use indexing search engines such as ISI or Google Scholar, instead of digging through hundreds and hundreds of pages of review articles and citation lists, saves probably hundreds of ours of work per year per researcher. This kind of global reservoir of information is quickly becoming an invaluable asset. I sure as shit wouldn't want to live without it.

And on that note, having those search engines produce unbiased, maybe at some point even peer-reviewed results is my answer to what is the most critical issue People can be dumb shits just as well on Facebook as in real life, but if for-profit companies are allowed to have even a subtle influence on research, we have a problem.

[wiggin]

What's more, the availability of truly academic information online is possibly the greatest thing Internet has given, certainly the greatest thing given to the world of science. Whatever literature research I have to do, I can do sitting next to my instrumentation, I don't have to wade through libraries and stacks of dusty, crumbling papers and journals. The ability to use indexing search engines such as ISI or Google Scholar, instead of digging through hundreds and hundreds of pages of review articles and citation lists, saves probably hundreds of ours of work per year per researcher. This kind of global reservoir of information is quickly becoming an invaluable asset. I sure as shit wouldn't want to live without it.

Amen. Lit searches used to be truly archaic and fantastically time consuming. It's getting a lot better even now, with any NIH-supported work requiring free access, eliminating the one big remaining barrier for at least some areas of research.

[Ominous Gamer]

Actually, when the student has access to that information (I don't know if I'd call reports and such 'academic' but never mind), so do the institutions. You can just as well Google a couple of paragraphs from the students' admissions and see if you get exact hits.

To make it even less time consuming, a popular trend is to have students turn in their work directly to turnitin.com. Professors love that place.

[wiggin]

To be honest, I only had one or two classes out of about 50 in all of undergrad where it would have even been feasible to cheat this way. Perhaps the solution is not to try catching students in the act, but rather designing assignments and classes so they can't. </digression>

[Aimless]

hurt is an awfully strong word when you are referring to denial of service attacks, especially when you try to throw in innocents.

except that they prevent other people from using those services that are disturbed. when they took down the swedish prosecutor's site they inconvenienced other people who had nothing to do with the assange case, in addition to wasting the money of swedish taxpayers. never mind the environmental cost of those DDos attacks. looking through the samples on wikipedia i'm hard pressed to find a single example of a totally thumbs-up action.

in real life protests you at least have a chance to prepare so that they don't fuck up traffic completely, or get out of hand and start vandalising shit or attacking police etc etc. and if things do get out of hand you have a decent chance of prosecuting the crazies or at least have a proper dialogue with an organisation that is accountable for the actions of its members.

[Ominous Gamer]

wouldn't even risk it to call it an organization. its more like a revolving door of people being in the right chatroom (or board) at the right time. There is no leadership because its designed that way. anon tried the physical protests and considered them insufficent. This is how it evolved. Protests shouldn't only be OKed as long as they don't inconvenience anyone, that defeats the entire purpose of getting heard. Anon doesn't want a dialogue with who they focus on, because that so rarely works out. They want coverage, they want people to know why, they want shame to come to those they consider to be doing wrong. They want their LULZ.

Anon isn't out to change the world or anything, no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is obviously my interpretation, as I don't speak for them.

---
and do you really want to get into the price to taxpayers and the environment when compared to physical protests?
Not seeing the purpose for using "hurt" either. Or why they need your thumbs up, considering you can always find someone who will take offense to someone else protesing something.

[Aimless]

They want their LULZ.

exactly, and they get their lulz for free even though they cost other people time and money. how on earth can that be okay?

This is obviously my interpretation, as I don't speak for them.

pfff nice try anomynous gamer

and do you really want to get into the price to taxpayers and the environment when compared to physical protests?

of course I do. it's always a trade-off. unaccountability, vandalism and lulz are not things that are worth that trade-off in any reasonable society, esp. considering the causes in question and the outcomes of th "protests".

[Ominous Gamer]

exactly, and they get their lulz for free even though they cost other people time and money. how on earth can that be okay?

People shouldn't enjoy activism?

of course I do. it's always a trade-off. unaccountability, vandalism and lulz are not things that are worth that trade-off in any reasonable society, esp. considering the causes in question and the outcomes of th "protests".

wait, you consider DDoS attacks vandalism?
and the trade off is only worthwhile if you consider the cause worthy?

[Lewkowski]

Protests shouldn't only be OKed as long as they don't inconvenience anyone, that defeats the entire purpose of getting heard.

Too bad. You don't get the right to mess with other people just to be "heard." Freedom in society only goes so far as you are not harming others directly. To say a protest has the right to block traffic for some political or social cause gives me the exact same right to block traffic to your house just because I feel like it. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Protest is fine as long as its peaceful and doesn't interfere with people's normal daily lives of business/commute.

[Ominous Gamer]

you are not harming others directly.

Didn't we already have a thread that covered you not understanding what this means?

but nice attempt to outlaw every march and parade, ever.

[Lewkowski]

Didn't we already have a thread that covered you not understanding what this means?

but nice attempt to outlaw every march and parade, ever.

So if some group with a grudge with you wanted to they should be able to "protest" your house 24/7? I'm less irritated by "planned" parades/marches since alternate routes are created and the usual flow of business isn't too inconvenienced. And protesters are given spots along presidential routes like the "free speech zones" are not as bad. When protest is organized, less disruptive and non-violent there can be some compromises. If you want to change things there is a democratic process - taking matters into your own hands and interfering with other people's property rights is wrong.

[littlelolligagged]

There's a church fairly near here that ties up traffic every Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday evenings as well. Let's outlaw them as well.

[Aimless]

People shouldn't enjoy activism?

Pfff, "activism"

wait, you consider DDoS attacks vandalism?

of course. they fuck things up after all. never mind even more blatant vandalism along the lines of hacking websites and whatnot. not to mention things like harrassment and threats.

and the trade off is only worthwhile if you consider the cause worthy?

i'm a reasonable person, and if i don't think lulz and butthurt are worthy causes then they are probably not worthy causes by reasonable standards. i'm not sure what the position of the Law is in these matters.

[Ominous Gamer]

So if some group with a grudge with you wanted to they should be able to "protest" your house 24/7? I'm less irritated by "planned" parades/marches since alternate routes are created and the usual flow of business isn't too inconvenienced. And protesters are given spots along presidential routes like the "free speech zones" are not as bad. When protest is organized, less disruptive and non-violent there can be some compromises. If you want to change things there is a democratic process - taking matters into your own hands and interfering with other people's property rights is wrong.

paparazzi and westboro bapist church do the 24/7 thing all the time lewk. You're trying to cherry pick, and you're doing it very poorly.
"too inconvenienced" a key phrase here. Considering thus far the DDoS attacks usuallly move on once the site crashes, meaning at most a few hours of down time. I know of plenty of parades that have lasted longer.

and free speech zones aren't exactly America's shinning example of how to handle free speech, but I'm not expecting you to understand that.

[Aimless]

There's a church fairly near here that ties up traffic every Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday evenings as well. Let's outlaw them as well.

in which way do they tie up traffic? maybe they should be pressured to change their activities so as to not fuck up the lives of people who don't care about their church.

[Aimless]

oh wait i get it... actions are only harmful and/or shitty when AG considers them to be such

[Aimless]

By the way, I'm with Tim on the security issue. I was actually thinking about that more than about anything else when I posted this thread, and was initially going to ask: what are the most significant problems threats in today's internet and how can they be fixed??

[Ominous Gamer]

Pfff

This is your mindset, and all it shows is your unwillingness to openly talk about whats happening. Do you see a reason to continue this back and forth?

of course. they fuck things up after all. never mind even more blatant vandalism along the lines of hacking websites and whatnot. not to mention things like harrassment and threats.

DDoS attacks don't "fuck things up" any worse than previous terms like /.'d and the digg effect. You don't need special software to bring a site down, you just need a lot of interested people. Anon sometimes has both.
Already covered this, but anon isn't an organization structured like what you seem used, but they do have extremists, and there is in fighting. Not everyone was behind going after that moron Gene Simmons after he threatened them, for example. Thats the double edged blade of being anon.

[Lewkowski]

paparazzi and westboro bapist church do the 24/7 thing all the time lewk. You're trying to cherry pick, and you're doing it very poorly.
"too inconvenienced" a key phrase here. Considering thus far the DDoS attacks usuallly move on once the site crashes, meaning at most a few hours of down time. I know of plenty of parades that have lasted longer.

and free speech zones aren't exactly America's shinning example of how to handle free speech, but I'm not expecting you to understand that.

You think I support westboro church or the paparazzi?

And free speech zones are a neat compromise. Once again you can't just violate other people's rights because you want to "protest" about something. You have the right to freely assemble but you do not have the right to block traffic, injure people or damage property.

[Ominous Gamer]

You think I support westboro church or the paparazzi?

It doesn't matter what you support, and I'm willing to bet most people here don't give a shit.
What you're ignoring however is whats already been considered legal.

[littlelolligagged]

in which way do they tie up traffic? maybe they should be pressured to change their activities so as to not fuck up the lives of people who don't care about their church.

Short of shrinking their membership drastically, or realizing that while they were able to expand the size of their facilities for their ever-growing congregation, but that doing that does nothing to fix the clogging of the multiple predominantly residential streets with many traffic lights in the immediate vicinity there's not much they can do.

Therefore the people who don't care about their church change their activities instead.

[GGT]

The internet is everywhere and influences pretty much everything we do. With so much of our money and hopes and dreams invested in the internet, it seems reasonable that we should want the internet to be as perfect as it possibly can be.

Clearly it's nowhere near perfect, with spam and ads and malware and botnets and Anonymous and whatnot.

What're the most urgent problems that need fixing?

From my POV, as an American who isn't very tech savvy, I'd put these things in priority:

1) Affordability of access
2) Bundling services (in order to afford access)
3) Monopolies or limited choices (see #1 and #2)
4) Security
5) Privacy
6) Clarity/Transparency


As a lay person, security and privacy should work hand-in-hand to benefit the consumer-user. Whether it's my computer innards, or my ISP, or my government demanding these things for me, I don't care. They should probably work together on these things, though.

I'd like to see my computer as user-friendly and secure as my car. I don't want to be afraid to drive, worrying about the gas tank exploding if I get rear-ended. I want to feel free to roam around new or strange areas with my doors locked, or drive super fast with my seat belt and airbags in case things get out of hand. I'd like it to be more affordable to drive around at my own speed, than flying. Flying should carry a premium. But I also want access to driver mobility anywhere I go, and not be limited to a bus, taxi or train, taking me to the airport.

I don't wanna pay for others' baggage or carry-ons (or drunk driving). If I want a meal or a movie those should be add-ons, but the car and road itself shouldn't cause me worry. Give me ala carte, basic transport that's safe and affordable, and I'll pick my road or highway, and deal with my fellow drivers. If some asshole is being an aggressive driver, tailgating my ass, stalking me, speeding or drunk driving, give me a 911 to call and report the jerks. Then take care of them, get them off the road.

I'd rather opt IN than opt OUT. Teach me how to drive, give me a safe car and rules of the road, let me know when the speed limit changes, or the bridge ahead is out. Some roads will charge a toll; I'll pay it but don't remove alternate routes via rural routes, slow boats or fast planes. As I see it, the internet is like a transportation device, with levels of affordability. But all choices should have user safety in mind. Isn't that the idea behind sidewalks, wheelchair accessibility, bike paths, pedestrian cross-walks, road signs and speed limits, and beeping traffic lights for the blind?