New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that by giving up your information, you are instantly sacrificing your freedom? I don't understand how this turned into discussion about "child abusers" and "terrorists."
I was targeting white-collar crime above, but I suppose it could go further than that. For example, there are online pharmacies now. Also, there are many phishing sites made to look like those of banks. If every host required no information, do you think there would be more or less of these kinds of websites?
No, there will be exactly the same because this is law of supply and demand there is a limited number of people which can be fooled with those scams, they need a minimum number of those to break even, so, now most phishing sites are on hacked servers or in places where the law cannot reach anyway, only a handful are really paid for, how many with real and not stolen cards/identities? A criminal is someone who does not obey the law, putting more laws requiring more data will not stop them, same as putting more laws against immigration to stop crime, criminals will still go through, only law abiding citizens will not.
No, but if the government is allowed to trawl the net for all the info about you, they will connect the dots sooner or later, if you cannot have a truly anonymous and disconnected profile online, they will make you pay for your views. Not to mention they can give this data to criminals or the criminals will get it without their approval.
Comedy gold?
No one requires any information and there'll be the same amount of nefarious activity. Why require the information in the first place? Is it for a new hoarders episode?
Yet we should be able to anonymously do anything online via ToR (I assume), with Javascript off and only visiting SSL sites. What a pity that the basis of SSL requires a 3rd party which can verify the authenticity (information, credentials) of the website you want to talk to.
Horrific double standards there, surely.
I thought you were opposed to current practices regarding personal information to purchase service online; I apologize for the misunderstanding. I'm not in favor of creating new laws related to this, I just thought you were arguing against the current ones.
I agree with the second point; also, as a taxpayer, it would likely be very costly if the government did start doing this. It has already started happening to some extent though. Facebook photos of "the accused" are shown to the judge/jury (at least here in Canada) to attempt to prove character. I honestly hope that it doesn't get to the point that people are afraid to express themselves or share creative media online as a result of government/police intervention.
Largely, yes, There will be the same number of addicts and the same number of phishing sites, they will still be hosted on hacked servers or botnets, though, because it is cheaper this way even if anonymous hosting will be even easier. It is still possible (I tried and it is relatively easy, besides .onion sites and all, i mean on clear internet) and was even more in the past, yet, phishing sites and child porn thrived more recently. So, on one hand we have less freedom to host anonymously, more police rights and less constitutional liberties, but crime is on the rise. The answer is obviously, more power to the police and more policemen allocated to lobbying for more power, and tracing people that oppose that power than actually fighting crime, it did not work before, but will surely work now. The only way to control crime is to have total control on every citizen.
And who needs CAs? I never bought any certificate, I can still spread my devious propaganda online, no?
It will be much worse soon. Already judges and lawmakers are blackmailed using the data acquired from their online activity to pass more laws giving more power to the police or 3 letter agencies, judges forced to give "correct" sentences, etc.
However, as long as you can maintain a limited number of fictitious profiles and discard them at reasonable intervals, there should be no problem. Smart people will survive, sheep will pay for their unwavering trust in the police state.
Caesar can do not wrong, surely.
You can if you like, there's no guarantee that there's a connect between what you are doing and what you think you're doing, though.
That is always the case. With or without CAs. If I can get CAs using stolen identities and credit cards or even use free ones, everyone can if they want to, this is also true with domain names.
Heck, terrorists are using police insignia and fake papers all the time, some of them were real policemen same with child abusers or drug dealers, the world is full of policemen raping women and kids, if not dealing drugs per se, at least helping the gangs, corruption touches everyone, once the citizen will be at the mercy of the policeman who will keep that in check? Nobody, police states never worked, will not start working now.
Jeezo, the point isn't what details you use to acquire a certificate, it's the fact that the certificate maps you to a specified place. That's precisely the point of them.
Really, I think the point is to encrypt the line, first and foremost, trusting the key is a completely different (and secondary in this case of protecting your identity by making it difficult for third parties to intercept your communication) matter. if you do not trust the other end, the whole point is moot, as for MITM attacks, they are more likely if the key is issued by some "trusted" by the government authority, either because the government likely has ways to get them or because criminals managed to get them from the government. It is much less likely they will get them from the other end of the line if you are using self-signed ones because you and your partner at the other end of the line are the only ones having the key, while in case of CAs, there is a third copy, sort of speak.
You really have no idea what we are talking about, right?
I have been thinking about the idea of "inverse CAs". When you sign up to a website it will send your browser a CSR for the specific sub domain assigned to you, then your browser will sign it and reply with the certificate. From this point on, every time you login to the site, and all data you transfer, will be encrypted with a certificate for which your browser is the CA.
This is an idea I would like to explore further when I get a chance. The lesson to learn is "trust noone".
Moaunique, they really need a law in your country to ban people from the Internet.
Go to a dictionary and study the words "authority" and "authenticity" then go back to your bunker and think of something cohesive to say.
Nah, that is only in the land of the free, they can even ban people from computers, not only internet over there
I am sure you would like to join US after UK leaves EU.
You could introduce the concept of being tough on annoying people not only criminals (after all, you can make it a crime to annoy someone or disagree about something and limit "walls of text" to 10-15 words at most in order to help the reading-impaired people share from their vast knowledge and contribute to the conversation too->more equality!) and become the next president. Online forums will be much more relaxing, everyone will agree with you and will share the same level of knowledge, at least pretend to, much better!
As for forums hosted in other countries that is simple, you can build a sort of great firewall if seizing the domains accomplishes nothing. Last resort, bomb the mofos before having a chance to spread their devious ideas and poison the mind of young people, the future of your great nation. It will guarantee safety and serenity online, after all, this is what everyone looks for, have a chat with like-minded people about how to bomb the ones that do not pray to the true god(s).
Dear @Alessio,
We received a complain against your domain example.com that you are using a youtube video which contains copyright audio of music company "earn-from-court-cases universal"
Your domain has been suspended and name server changed to suspended-registrar.tld
Our fees is only $399 per case.
Thanks.
Your registrar
(Go to court and open a case against us that we're charging money for resolving tickets... lol)
This is exactly the problem. Such utterly insane rulings could potentially lead to a situation where this might become common practice.
Yes, so far it is only a local thing and yes, German courts are known for their "interesting" interpretations but that country being not exactly the smallest or least influential one (at least on a European level) I wouldnt want this to potentially set an example for future rulings in other countries.
You made it so simple to understand, thanks! You're right, it makes sense (at least to me) hehe
It'd limit us to registrars and NICs operating in countries where online freedom of speech covers a broader spectrum. It might be for the better as we'd feed the big boys less i.e. Verisign et al.
Another approach to this would be that the amount of gTLDs may rise in the future, maybe one day anybody can get their own, then we'd have less oversight.
Of course rootservers of ICANN could then revoke the whole gTLD.
And then we can revoke the rootservers. Setting up a global independent DNS-like system is trivial. it will be done, it is time to let the old arpa to rest.