Kaspersky Asks For Internet Police And Passports
In an interview with Vivian Yeo of Zdnet Asia, Eugen Kaspersky stated that he would like to change the design of the Internet after being asked what he would change if he had the power to change three things related to IT security.
According to him the biggest problem in IT security these days is anonymity. His solution: Changing the design of the Internet by introducing regulation -- Internet passports, Internet police and international agreements -- about following Internet standards".
He knows that those standards are only as good as the acceptance rate globally which is why he suggests to "cut off" countries that do not agree or do not pay attention to the agreement.
The problem that he sees with today's form of identification - which is IP based - is that it is sometimes not possible to identify the person behind the connection at a specific time thanks to Internet cafes or hacked computers.
Most users will probably say bollocks and move on. Others will find flaws in his suggestion. If you look at real life examples you will notice for instance that people are anonymous there as well. You can phone someone from a public phone anonymously, you can send someone a letter without revealing your name. You can shop anonymously and talk to people without revealing your identity.
Bot networks and hacked computers don't really reveal anything about the person behind the attack either even with Internet specific passports or international agreements.
While his suggestion would limit certain forms of harassment and attacks on the Internet, it won't stop Internet crime completely.
What's your thought in the matter? The full interview is available on the Zdnet Asia website.
Update: The article is no longer available as ZDnet Asia is no longer available under the address.
Advertisement
The way I look at it is that if top-secret government data or grandma’s online shopping can’t be kept safe on their own, they just shouldn’t use the internet.
Common sense and awareness is all you need to avoid being a victim of this “cybercrime.”
More control-freakery – or probably just a publicity stunt.
I understand his point and it’s not that bad, but I doubt it will succeed. And people often go extreme with it which means you will lose your freedom.
But the one way or the other, finally there needs to be some way to identify people on the internet to stop crime on the Internet. Especially when doing business on the Internet internationally.
I think it could be an interesting concept to have a global organisation where you can register freely for a global Internet passport you can use for doing business online. When something happens this passport should be used to identify the other person and to get your rights easier. When somebody doesn’t have that passport you should avoid doing business for your own protection. Because then it will be difficult to identify them to possibly sue them or whatever.
E.g. This month 240 usd was stolen from me when the seller on Ebay (better said thief) convinced me to pay for a jacket on ebay outside the auction via paypal. Now I have received an empty package. The police from Logan in Utah (where that person lives) says they have no jurisdiction over international cases over the Internet. Now I have to count on the guys from Paypal, but I doubt about what they can do. Stupid thing is I know the exact name of the person, but I don’t really know what to do to enforce my rights. Anyway we’ll see how this turns out….
…But the moral of the story is; Internet crime could be reduced a lot if there is some way of identifying people and with clear international laws you can rely on when something happens on the Internet.
My problem with suggestions like this isn’t just the desirability or even the feasibility.
It’s that in my experience, people who espouse such ideas invariably have agenda of their own – and it’s not the agenda they show to the world.
What’s your agenda Mr Kaspersky?
“Too much order is sclerosis, too much disorder is anarchy”. In this case as in all others, only ethics and consciousness shall provide the gateway to intelligence and justice of mankind.
Meanwhile? To choose, disorder is a natural state of life in essence, its ordering is natural when conducted by truth, not by enforcement. Consequently I’d disagree with Mr. Kaspersky..
This is not the first speech against internet anonymity. Among previous I saw there was Microsoft and VeriSign, – did they have USSR background too, Mike J? :)
I think if he needs a nanny to hold his hand, change his diaper and powder his candy little butt he can hire one. I prefer to keep my freedom instead ( what little I have left ).
You can see his USSR background in this.A surprising number of Russians yearn for the good ol’ days, even the Stalinist regime, of the Police State.
Good intentions, yet without any chance.
Without lifting the last and least – living or otherwise – there is no end to our collective misery. IT or anything else around, it’s kinda dead-endish, isn’t it?
Looking for options? Hoping to find? How about … dreams coming true?
Maybe, just make sure you give it your best shot :) at getreadynow.net
Sincerely, Markus
Kaspersky (as in company) craves media attention, even if achieved by spitting information that is hundred percent crazy.
With several mature free av products available and Microsoft joining them, companies that offer commercial solutions will only get more desperate.
This is not last and not craziest thing on topic we will hear in near future. :)
Kaspersky thinks too highly of himself, it’s only his blue dreams.
Freedom is better than regulations.
Of course, freedom has a price – you have to be smart and careful and aware. For me that’s a small price compared to living in a police state or a nanny state like this guy wants.
In short – let the internet be.
As for Internet – I prefer freedom and anonymity to regulations.
Too complicated and concerns itself with end-users…not feasible.
What the new internet he suggest needs is an internet garbage man. By simply going out identifying and destroying bad packets out in the cloud you can not only eliminate threats but also save bandwidth for everyone.
Now I realize the controversy about what would be deemed garbage and who would perform this service but if everyone wants a safer web experience, someone has to step in and take a proactive approach.
You can sit in your castle all day and defend it but unless you charge out and wage war you will always be just defending.