The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 17:36

Tim Burners-Lee has been promoting an idea. That's cool, since he's the inventor of the "World Wide Web. (Not to be confused with TeH Interwebz, which was invented by cats to promote their ideology.)

CNN: TBL on the 30'th Anniversary, combating hacking and abuse

Webfoundation - On the Web's 30'th, "What's Next?"

And, finally, Berners-Lee's "A Contract for the Web."

Most of you are well-acquainted with "The Problem." You know what's out there and some of you have confronted it, or been confronted by it, first-hand. We are all "in it" whether we want to be or not. Even those who never use the Internet are subject to its abuse. Their names lie, rank upon rank, in stolen databases waiting to be purchased by the latest unsavory buyer.

How do we need to look at this beast?

Let's say we try to create a situation where "The Internet" is, in fact, "Real Life." It's not just "electronic," it's a Beast in the Jungle...

<you can skip this part if you are already past your word-count limit for today :) >

You wake up at 10am, two hours late for work because someone sneaked into your room and turned off your alarm clock. You go to take a shower, but the water is cold. You go down to the basement to discover that your neighbor has diverted the hot-water line to their house and you've been paying for their hot-water usage for three months. You get dressed in a rush and notice that your new pants don't fit. You read the label, again, and notice that it has a small fold-out section. Underneath the "Microscopic Label Reader" you notice a bunch of foreign words. With your "Legalese Translator," that you pay a monthly fee to access, you discover the pants are not guaranteed to comply with the size stated on the label, since the company has trademarked "Siize" and the number doesn't indicated actual "size." You also discover that the pants are, in fact, not pants but a strangely shaped avocado.

On your way to your car, someone picks your pocket and steals your wallet. You didn't see them because they were not only disguised as a bush, but they were actually a real bush. It's the New Bush 2.0 hack and you got robbed! You get in your car and before you even start the engine, the police pull up in your driveway and tell you that they're confiscating your car because you've been implicated in a giant money-laundering scheme. It turns out one of your neighbors has been using your car at night to defraud Teh Gubbermint and millions of broom owners by sending out fake notices of "Broom Taxes." The witches are a very angry lobbying group, these days.

And, speaking of the government, Agent Smith asks you to pick up some more cheese spread. And, of course, not that crappy budget stuff you always buy, but "the good stuff." Name-brand. The Cheese Wiz stuff, kind of spray-on cheese! Agent Smith isn't a fussy roommate, really. He tries to go unnoticed and sits beside you ever night as you watch your cat videos and, when you're feeling frisky, go hunting for more titillating viewing material. You discover Agent Smith likes some of your choices and keeps snapshots of them in his wallet. Which, you can't see of course, since it's all "Secret." You don't mind though, because Agent Smith constantly tells you he's "keeping you safe." And, he's also backing up your pr0n collection, so that can't be bad, right?

While your driving down the road, fifteen different cars pull in behind you, following you everywhere you go. It's inevitable that two to ten of them will attempt to pull in front of you and divert your course. But, you've prepared and you press "The Button" which shuts down most of their automobiles. Unfortunately, it also has the effect of rendering much of the road completely useless so "grats you." You have a choice - Be safe from them or be able to drive comfortably all the way to your parking space at your office.

The guy that lives in your car's radio doesn't mind that it may take a bit longer for you to get to work. He's too busy taking pictures of you, writing down the songs you like, making substitutions to your favorite music tracks when you're not paying attention and has co-opted your automobile's braking system in hopes of selling it to someone so they can use it to kill you... or, at least force you to buy a new brake system, since it's Fredo's Brake Pad Manufacuring Company that is considering buying access to it at the moment.

When you get to work, you discover you've been fired. It seems someone wore a shirt that looked just like your favorite one and they ran into the office and stole everything. Every_single_thing. Since it kinda looked like you, it must be you, so the company notifies you that their attorneys will be suing you for a bajillion monies. It doesn't matter that the company never bothered to lock their doors or secure anything. It doesn't matter that all they ever did was throw everything out the window, whether customers were paying them or not. Now, you'll be the one that will get fired for it. Grats you. And, of course, it's not really your fault since there isn't any other company to work for - They are all "The Company."

Later in the day, on your way home from getting fired at work, you are murdered in cold blood while sitting at a stop-light and someone who looks just like you throws your corpse in the gutter and starts driving your car around, going to your house, sleeping in your bed, and joking with Agent Smith about how dangerous a world it is. Luckily, at least he remembered to pick up the Cheese Wiz and Agent Smith is none the wiser... Nor does Agent Smith really care who provided the Cheese Wiz.

<reacquire the post, here :) >

IF we had to live "Real Life" in the conditions that now exist "online" we'd extinct ourselves overnight. Our budgets just to protect ourselves from ourselves would be outrageous and nobody who could be targeted would be safe no matter how many monies they spent on tanks, aircraft and assorted things that go <Boom>. Nobody. Not the US, not China, not the UK, not Australia... Well, maybe Australia, 'cause "spiders", but everyone else would be friggin screwed.

Berners-Lee's proposal is simple and, in my opinion, that's its flaw. Sure, he's a folk-legend, but not all heroes are perfect.
Governments will

Ensure everyone can connect to the internet : So that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online.

Keep all of the internet available, all of the time : So that no one is denied their right to full internet access.

Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy : So everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear
These sound great, right? BUT, the only reason it would be possible for these to actually work is because there is an "Official Somebody" to be held accountable. Not all governments are legitimate and not all governments are capable of being held accountable for everything they do. Right now, it's virtually guaranteed that what you think your "Rights" are "online" as a citizen of your country are being stomped on, either by your own country or by their allies. Or, a not-ally. Or, an avenue of attack that your government knows about, but purposefully does not protect you against because they might need to use it one day... There is very little in the way of "privacy" for "citizens" in the online world these days. One can't hold someone accountable for something one doesn't know has happened. The first two are "doable" in some ways, but the whole "privacy" thing regarding Governments is ridiculous - It can't be policed by the citizenry.
Companies will...
Complete garbage promises, since there is no official legally binding instrument nor a way to penalize non-compliance.

It's... It's the "U.N." suggestion. There's no penalty, nobody checking up on them, nobody who can tell them "No" and no penalty for non-compliance. What, someone is going to use bad words to criticize them? A bajillion monies in profits can counter that very easily by them making a few posts to Twitter and Facebook, no problem.
Citizens will...
Feel-Good Garbage. This assumes that the citizens aren't, in fact, criminals... And, it also assumes that people will "Eat right" and "Get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day" and "lovingly care for their houseplants by checking their soil conditions and watering or fertilizing them as needed." Various places I have lived are full of dead houseplants... And, I like plants. Botanicidalist? Maybe, but I still like them.

The point of this post isn't to dump all over what is a feel-good movement with well intentioned purpose. There are fifty-eleven of those to choose from in the world and this one isn't a special case. There is only one purpose for this post:

What would you do in order to fix The Internet and to address "The Problem?"

Is there a problem? Does "The Problem" exist? Is ever-diminishing privacy a concern of yours? Are you concerned or not that it's likely some if not all of your personal information is in a criminal's database? Or, has the chance to be at any moment? And, do you mind or not that your activity online is data that is collected and sold, not just to the "highest bidder" but to anyone that is willing to pay for it?

How would you fix The Internet?

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by Observe » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 20:32

In the past, wealth has been derived from material resources, such as gold mines, oil wells, hunting territories etc. Wars have been fought over control of such resources. It has been possible and common to invade a country to steal land etc.

In the present and increasing into the future, wealth is based on information data. The clothes you like, your sexual orientation, dietary preferences and every little thing you do, is being feed into databases. The continuing development of artificial intelligence, will result in algorithms that know you better than you know yourself and are able to shape your desires and opinions to serve the purposes of government and marketeers.

The Internet, is merely the channel by which the masses can be manipulated. Don't shoot the messenger. The problems which you describe, are global in nature. Which brings up another point. One of the problems with the increasing popularity of nationalistic idiologies, is they are completely incapable of solving these kinds of global problems. Genetic engineering is another such case requiring international cooperation.

There needs to be global agreements on who owns personal data, where it can be used and measures taken to prevent abuse. We can't Brexit our way out of the future of the internet.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:26

Observe wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 20:32
...There needs to be global agreements on who owns personal data, where it can be used and measures taken to prevent abuse. We can't Brexit our way out of the future of the internet.
I gotta agreement here in my pocket that says <ahem> "I rule Teh Earf!" I signed it, myself. Pretty ironclad agreement if you ask me. Which you should have, since I now rule "Teh Earf." But, nobody else signed it and I can't make them. They don't seem to understand how this all works! :)

That's the key to "agreements" isn't it? For one, someone has to enforce them. For another, there have to not only be clearly defined conditions but also clearly defined penalties for non-conformance. It is 2019 and we've been "behaviorally modern humans" for at least ten thousand years and we have no such worldwide body that can enforce anything at all... Zero.

That's the clinching point in Berners-Lee's proposal - There's nobody that can "make it happen."

I agree that having some sort of governing body and an agreement put forth would be great. But, getting such a governing body in the first place would be a huge problem. And, then getting over 200 nations to ratify a treaty that has an "Enforcement Clause" as in "If you don't do this thing, everyone will go to war with you?" Somehow, the line to stand in so one can sign that treaty seems a bit... short. :)

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by Observe » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:40

Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:26
It is 2019 and we've been "behaviorally modern humans" for at least ten thousand years and we have no such worldwide body that can enforce anything at all... Zero.
For most of those 10 thousand years, we didn't have to deal with worldwide issues. Consider also, it is only relatively recently in the history of Sapiens, that we have been at the top of the food chain. We don't know how to deal with our new-found powers. We are not prepared for what we have become or what we are becoming. All evidence, points strongly to the self-extinction of our species as we currently know it, in the not to distant future.

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 20:51
x3tc

Re: The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by JSDD » Wed, 13. Mar 19, 00:34

Observe wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:40
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:26
It is 2019 and we've been "behaviorally modern humans" for at least ten thousand years and we have no such worldwide body that can enforce anything at all... Zero.
For most of those 10 thousand years, we didn't have to deal with worldwide issues. Consider also, it is only relatively recently in the history of Sapiens, that we have been at the top of the food chain. We don't know how to deal with our new-found powers. We are not prepared for what we have become or what we are becoming. All evidence, points strongly to the self-extinction of our species as we currently know it, in the not to distant future.
i look at this completely different ...
we are not preparing ourselves for the "proper" use of technology, it´s not that we cant do that: we just dont do it!! it´s called ethics ... if we regulate the use of newly invented technologies, there wont be any problems with it, but (!) we also wont have kind-of "tun-away-success-stories" like google, facebook andd so on ... (or at least not tat frequent) ... with a huge degree in liberty, there also comes a huge degree in risk ... and chances

the opposite is the development of the atomic bomb / manhattam project: a highly regulated environment of the development, the use of it restricted for military purpose only (bombs) ... we have invented the means to destroy mankind, but we didnt do it ... since then, up to now, we have regulated (or tried to regulate) the proliferation of nuclear waepons with moderate to good success ... lunatics out there do not have access to nuclear material directly or the means to manufacture the materials themselves (except maybe iran/north korea)

with regard to the internet:
it was intended to be a way of transfering information from A to B, not more, not less ... today, any fool can send idiotic / false information around the world in a second, it´s up to you to decide for yourself to believe that source or not. i prefer the scientific approach: be interested, but sceptical ... beside the common sense approach which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A :gruebel: ... :mrgreen: :thumb_up:

regarding "hacking", i got to say, encrypt your communication / data. there are ways to secure it so that neither nsa nor the russians can access our information (without breaking into your appartment and rigging your pc manually ^^)
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: The Internet - Can it be fixed?

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 13. Mar 19, 17:10

JSDD wrote:
Wed, 13. Mar 19, 00:34
Observe wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:40
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:26
It is 2019 and we've been "behaviorally modern humans" for at least ten thousand years and we have no such worldwide body that can enforce anything at all... Zero.
For most of those 10 thousand years, we didn't have to deal with worldwide issues. Consider also, it is only relatively recently in the history of Sapiens, that we have been at the top of the food chain. We don't know how to deal with our new-found powers. We are not prepared for what we have become or what we are becoming. All evidence, points strongly to the self-extinction of our species as we currently know it, in the not to distant future.
i look at this completely different ...
we are not preparing ourselves for the "proper" use of technology, it´s not that we cant do that: we just dont do it!! it´s called ethics ...
I agree that we don't intuitively examine the consequences of our actions very far into the future, but there's also an argument that attempting to "over-regulate" something can reduce its functionality and be counterproductive for its intended use. IOW - We might come up with a great idea that gets quashed because it requires too much regulation to make it work. At that point, we have to decide if the risk of little regulation is worse than the possible benefits of the new thing.

Let's say we invent self-reproductive nanotech that we are "reasonably sure" will rid our planet of all "plastic trash" and will neatly deposit it in collection centers where it can be reprocessed to usable material. Sounds great! We do the thing and then the planet is covered by "Grey Goo" and we are all dead... Here, in the real world, we have decidedly voted in favor of NOT developing any self-reproducing nanotech, ever. Anyone attempting it would be immediately set upon by the rest of the world, 'cause at least we've thought things through a little bit.

But, there's pics of dead sea-turtles full of plastic bits and hundreds of people posting vids of them picking plastic trash out of the ocean! When will what we consider to be a present-day "unacceptable risk" be outweighed by a "unwavering need?" At that point in some sort of logic problem we're confronted with all the time, we don't do so well...
..with regard to the internet:it was intended to be a way of transfering information from A to B, not more, not less ... today, any fool can send idiotic / false information around the world in a second, it´s up to you to decide for yourself to believe that source or not.
Aha! "Individual Responsibility!" There it is!

But, how do we empower people to actually be able to take "individual responsibility" to do "all the things" necessary to "fix stuffs?" It's a big list of stuff to fix and many people may regard someone's attempt at "individual responsibility" as being counterproductive to their interests.

An ISP wants to sell your data and wants to push advertising to you based on your personal browsing habits as well as make it more likely you will use "preferred services" for which they charge such services a premium for the customers they purposefully steer to them. This is "a thing" happening, or less, right now or is in the forefront of the ISP battle.

IF we wish to make Individual Responsibility a tool to combat the problems, what happens when the ISP actively takes measures to defeat all the tools that could enable such a thing? What happens when they successfully create a captive audience that doesn't know they are captives?

Right now, there are two search engines on the net. Two. Yes, I know, there are several different types and all sorts of url names and claimed features, but at the end of the day the two commercial engines that actually do what it is intended for them to do and do it well are Google and Bing. Every other commercial engine uses them to one degree or another and independent engines only cover a tiny fraction or a specialized sort of search.

Google and Bing theoretically control access to teh interewebz store of information for billions of users. Others are creeping up, though, like Amazon and the social media site revolution spots like Facebook, etc. But, people don't think about that, do they? They think that conducting a "search" is all the same, but it's not. There is no uncontrolled, unfettered, "search of teh internetz." Zero. Why? Because there's no money in searching the net without prejudice or bias... Plus, it's expensive. :)

Here, we've developed great tools, but there's the financial and economic impact to consider of how those tools are used and the desirability of being able to make bajillions of monies overnight to "combat." There is no profit to be made from altruism on the internet. Amazon owns it, Google controls it, everyone else is competing for both jobs. :)
regarding "hacking", i got to say, encrypt your communication / data. there are ways to secure it so that neither nsa nor the russians can access our information (without breaking into your appartment and rigging your pc manually ^^)
Yes/No/Maybe

There's a point where metadata reveals "all." At least as far as certain types of privacy is concerned. There isn't a way to defeat the resources of a true government agency for a private individual. All claims made regarding such are false. Unless, of course, there's much more than just a system or procedure that people use - There would actually have to be virulent government and worldwide support for such a thing and where would that come from?
Observe wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:40
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 22:26
It is 2019 and we've been "behaviorally modern humans" for at least ten thousand years and we have no such worldwide body that can enforce anything at all... Zero.
For most of those 10 thousand years, we didn't have to deal with worldwide issues. Consider also, it is only relatively recently in the history of Sapiens, that we have been at the top of the food chain. We don't know how to deal with our new-found powers. We are not prepared for what we have become or what we are becoming. All evidence, points strongly to the self-extinction of our species as we currently know it, in the not to distant future.
There's no impending doom as far as a currently known existential crisis for our species. There are possibilities, of course, but no clear indication of such right this very moment. Even Global Climate Change isn't going to do it. The worst-case scenario would certainly suck, but it's not existential.

We have been at the top of the food chain for a very long time, ever since we began augmenting our physical capabilities and organizing groups of us. That we can't personally fight off a lion or shark doesn't mean we're not "at the top of the food chain." Where we exist in behaviorally modern organized numbers, we have always been at the top. Individually? Not so much. :)

But, the "group" thing is very important.

I came across this the other day: Oxford Researcher - Severn Moral Rules that Unite Humanity

Now, the idea of "Universal Mores" has been bandied about for a very long time. As far as we can tell, ever since people figured out that there were other people, we've been considering the idea of what is common among human groups. Do these mores actually exist? Probably, to one degree or another. But, I think there's one common issue that this article does address a bit: We only go "so far" outside of our "own group" when applying these "Universal Mores."

Every human organized government or association or collective effort that has ever had any remote form of success has one basic component it is organized around - The Human Family Unit. Anything that ignores that, purposefully or accidentally, fails. That appears to be our basic social building block.

So... How do we leverage that to solve social problems or behavior problems like "Teh stuffs with the interwebz?" IF it's such a powerful thing, certainly we could use it as a tool to improve things?

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”